By Stacy M. Brown Black Press USA Senior National Correspondent
The Trump administration is dismantling the very programs created to correct generations of systemic racism and economic exclusion—programs that helped level the playing field for Black, Latino, Indigenous, and women entrepreneurs. In a series of targeted assaults, Trump has moved to destroy the federal government’s most effective tools for uplifting historically disadvantaged communities, threatening billions of dollars and tens of thousands of jobs. In the most devastating move yet, Trump’s Justice Department filed to end the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program, a nearly $37 billion affirmative action initiative that for decades guaranteed at least 10 percent of federal transportation contracts would go to minority- and women-owned firms. The administration now claims the DBE program violates the Constitution’s equal protection clause, siding with two White-owned companies that sued because they didn’t want to compete with firms led by people of color. If approved, the settlement would kill the DBE’s founding mission—to address the entrenched discrimination that has locked out marginalized groups from federal contracting. The Biden administration previously defended the program, recognizing that race-neutral alternatives alone cannot erase centuries of inequality. But Trump’s team reversed course, citing the Supreme Court’s ban on race-conscious college admissions to justify gutting one of the country’s last-standing economic justice efforts.
“Today’s decision helps ensure that the voices of minority- and women-owned businesses will be heard in a case that directly threatens their opportunity to participate fairly in federally funded transportation work,” said Brooke Menschel, Senior Counsel at Democracy Forward. “With this ruling, the court has recognized what’s at stake—not just for these businesses, but for the longstanding principles of redressing past discrimination in our economy.” At the same time, Trump signed an executive order aimed at neutralizing the Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA)—the only federal agency solely dedicated to supporting minority-owned businesses. Under President Biden, the MBDA helped secure over $3.2 billion in contracts and $1.6 billion in capital for entrepreneurs of color, creating or preserving more than 23,000 jobs. Trump’s action, combined with a recent court ruling that barred the MBDA from considering race in program eligibility, threatens to erase those gains. “These actions are designed to kill progress,” said Rep. Maxine Waters, the top Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee. “This isn’t just neglect—it’s sabotage.” Even as Trump claims to champion small business, his policies have delivered devastating blows to those most in need. A Kentucky judge previously issued an injunction weakening the DBE program, and now Trump’s administration is making that decision permanent. Meanwhile, courts and right-wing organizations aligned with Trump are challenging the very legality of race-conscious aid, using the courts to do what Congress would never allow—turn back the clock on civil rights. In response, a coalition of minority- and women-owned business groups successfully petitioned the court to intervene. Their warning is blunt: without DBE and MBDA protections, many minority-owned firms will collapse. “This decision is an important step forward in the hearing of minority- and women-owned businesses who want to ensure that Congress’s laws creating and maintaining the longstanding ‘Disadvantaged Business Enterprise’ contracting program are preserved,” said Douglas L. McSwain of Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs. ”They will have the opportunity to demonstrate that the program is important and needed to help prevent ongoing discriminatory practices.”
Left to right: Carmeshia Gibson-Adult Protective Service Worker; Jean Colvin-Therapeutic Foster Parent, Takeisha Knox-QA and Resource Supervisor, Leon Coleman- Foster Parent, Modesta Smiley-Service Caseworker, Mattie Gray-Foster Parent, Stacia Wilson-Foster Parent, LaTonya Hanible Wooley-Service Supervisor, Lela Coleman-Foster Parent; Probate Judge Rolonda Wedgeworth sitting and not pictured were Wilson Morgan-Director and Kelley R. Wilson-Service Caseworker
State of Alabama -Greene County Foster Care Month May 2025
Whereas, The family serves as the primary source of love, identity, self-esteem, and support and is the very foundation of our communities and our State; and Whereas, In Greene County there are 24 children in foster care; being provided with a safe, secure, and stable home along with the compassion and nurturance of a foster family; and Whereas, Foster families, who open their homes and hearts to children and adults whose families are in crisis play a vital role in helping children and families heal and reconnect and launching children into successful adulthood and adults into safety, security ; and Whereas, There are 3 Foster Family Homes, 1 Kinship Guardianship Home, 1 Therapeutic Trained Foster Care Provider in Greene County and there is still greater need for more foster care providers; and Whereas, There are numerous individuals and public and private organizations who work to increase public awareness of the needs of children and adults who are in foster care as well as the enduring and valuable contribution of foster parents and the foster care ‘ system’ is valued and respected because of the may lives that are touched in a positive manner; Therefore I, Honorable Judge Rolonda M. Wedgeworth, by virtue of the authority vested in me as Probate Judge of Greene County, do proclaims the Month of May in the Year of 2025 to be ‘Foster Care Month’ in Greene County and encourage citizens to volunteer their talents and energies on behalf of children and adults in foster care, foster parents, and the child welfare professional working with them during this month and throughout the year.
Nonpartisan health policy institution KFF estimated 170,000 Alabamians will become uninsured if the “Big Beautiful Bill” is signed into law.
By Chance Phillips, Alabama Political Reporters
The budget proposal passed by House Republicans last Thursday, titled the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” would seriously reduce health insurance coverage in Alabama, according to several nonpartisan reports. On May 20, before a round of last-minute amendments was approved, nonpartisan health policy organization KFF estimated the bill would render around 53,000 more Alabamians uninsured. And if the current version is passed, which allows the ACA enhanced premium tax credits to expire, KFF placed the number of Alabamians that would be left without healthcare at around 170,000. Most of the cuts in healthcare funding would take the form of reducing spending on Medicaid, the United States’ health insurance program for low-income households, by $625 billion over ten years. This cut would largely be due to imposing novel work requirements on people who receive Medicaid because of the expansion of the program by the Affordable Care Act. States would also be required to establish and verify recipients’ eligibility more often. As a result of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, the budget could also trigger an automatic 4 percent cut to most Medicare spending due to trillions in lost tax revenue, drastically increasing the federal deficit. The Congressional Budget Office estimated this would mean a cut to Medicare of “$490 billion over the 2027–2034 period.”
Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-Louisiana, maintains that claims the bill would cut Medicaid are “misinformation.” In a recent CNN interview, he explicitly said Republicans “are not cutting Medicaid in this package. With work requirements and other changes, we are cutting waste, fraud, and abuse in the program.”
However, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the changes to Medicaid are likely to leave over 10 million people nationwide off of the program by 2034, with almost 8 million being left totally uninsured.
During a press call last week, Allison Orris, director of Medicaid policy for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, compared the proposed new work requirements to ones implemented in the state of Arkansas in 2018 and 2019. She said that “even though there were a number of exemptions for people with disabilities, for people with chronic conditions, for certain parents, people still lost coverage in Arkansas and the exemption process didn’t work.” Orris then declared that House Republicans’ work requirements are “even worse” than the ones tried in Arkansas. Effects of the proposed changes to Medicaid, however, are likely to vary significantly with how much state governments are willing to use their tax dollars to replace federal funding, as well as when and how stringently states would enforce the new work requirements. As one of only a few states that has not expanded Medicaid, Alabama appears almost certain to have a conservative response to any federal cuts to social safety net programs. During the most recent legislative session, state Sen. Arthur Orr, R-Decatur, already introduced two bills to further restrict eligibility for SNAP and Medicaid, but they failed to pass before sine die adjournment.
While the budget passed by the House would balloon the federal deficit, increasing federal debt by as much as $3.3 trillion by 2034, Republican politicians maintain that changes to Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program are needed to both get people employed and reduce federal expenditures.
Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr, Administrator of the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services Mehmet Oz, and two other Trump administration officials argued in an opinion piece in The New York Times earlier this month that work requirements are now a necessity. “For able-bodied adults, welfare should be a short-term hand-up, not a lifetime handout,” they wrote. “But too many able-bodied adults on welfare are not working at all. And too often we don’t even ask them to. For many, welfare is no longer a lifeline to self-sufficiency but a lifelong trap of dependency.”
In a Sunday interview on CBS News’ “Face the Nation,” Mike Johnson told reporter Margaret Brennan that “there’s a moral component to what we’re doing.” He emphasized that people who don’t work despite being able to are “cheating the system.
Alabama Senator Tommy Tuberville recently made a similar argument during a May 12 appearance on Fox Business Network’s “Kudlow” where he said people living off of social safety net programs has “got to be over with.”
But experts like Matt Bruenig of the People’s Policy Project and political science professor, Anne Whitesell, say that data shows there are very few able-bodied adults on programs like Medicaid and SNAP who could be working and aren’t already. “Given past experience with work requirements, it is unlikely [savings on Medicaid] would come from Americans finding jobs,” Whitesell writes. “My research suggests it’s more likely that the government would trim spending by taking away the health insurance of people eligible for Medicaid coverage who get tangled up in red tape.”
Alabama’s two Democratic members of Congress, Terri Sewell and Shomari Figures, have repeatedly criticized the proposed cuts. Sewell proposed an amendment on Wednesday to increase the ACA tax credits that the current bill allows to expire. Her amendment was not adopted. Having already passed the House of REpresentatives, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act now needs to be approved by the Senate before it can be signed into law. While a reconciliation package only requires a simple majority to pass, the budget proposal may not sail through the chamber as is.
“The president’s been very clear he has no intentions of pardoning Derek Chauvin, and it’s not a request that we’re looking at,” confirms a senior staffer at the Trump White House. That White House response results from public hope, including from a close Trump ally, Georgia Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene. The timing of Greene’s hopes coincides with the Justice Department’s recent decision to end oversight of local police accused of abuse.
It also falls on the fifth anniversary of the police-involved death of George Floyd on May 25th. The death sparked national and worldwide outrage and became a transitional moment politically and culturally, although the outcry for laws on police accountability failed.
The death forced then-Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden to focus on deadly police force and accountability. His efforts while president to pass the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act failed. The death of George Floyd also put a spotlight on the Black community, forcing then-candidate Biden to choose a Black woman running mate. Kamala Harris ultimately became vice president of the United States alongside Joe Biden.
Minnesota State Attorney General Keith Ellison prosecuted the cases against the officers involved in the death of Floyd. He remembers,” Trump was in office when George Floyd was killed, and I would blame Trump for creating a negative environment for police-community relations. Remember, it was him who said when the looting starts, the shooting starts, it was him who got rid of all the consent decrees that were in place by the Obama administration.”
In 2025, Police-involved civilian deaths are up by “about 100 to about 11 hundred,” according to Ellison. Ellison acknowledges that the Floyd case five years ago involved a situation in which due process was denied, and five years later, the president is currently dismissing “due process. “The Minnesota Atty General also says, “Trump is trying to attack constitutional rule, attacking congressional authority and judicial decision-making.” George Floyd was an African American man killed by police who kneeled on his neck and on his back, preventing him from breathing. During those nine minutes and 26 seconds on the ground, Floyd cried out for his late mother several times. Police subdued Floyd for allegedly passing a counterfeit $20 bill in a convience store in Minneapolis.
Charlie Rangel, the long-term Congressman and a heavyweight in New York politics as a member of Harlem’s ”Gang of Four”, has died at 94. His colorful and charismatic personality, bowties, and raspy voice made him a character on Capitol Hill who was impossible to forget. Rangel was simultaneously larger than life but also approachable and engaging. Rangel was the last living member of the “Gang of Four” made up of powerful African American leaders in New York: David Dinkins (1927-2020), Basil Paterson (1946-2014), and Percy Sutton (1920-2009). The four dealmakers were powerbrokers at a time when political decisions were made in smoke-filled rooms over poker games. In 2010, President Obama suggested that Rangel resign from Congress “with dignity” after he was targeted by an ethics investigation that would eventually mean he had to give up the Chairmanship of the Ways & Means Committee. “This guy from Lenox Avenue is retiring with dignity,” Rangel would later tell reporters as he departed Congress on his terms and at the time of his choosing. Rangel ignored Obama and remained in Congress for another six years with an aura that made many forget about the ethics investigation. Before serving Congress, Rangel did about every job in politics that existed. In 1961, Rangel was appointed by Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy to be an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York. Rangel was also a legal counsel for the New York Housing and Redevelopment Board. Charlie Rangel was born in Harlem in 1930. He would go on to represent one of the most storied parts of Manhattan for 46 years in the U.S. Congress. Along with the late John Conyers, Rangel was also a founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus. “We all have a large stake in preserving our democracy, but I maintain that those without power in our society, the Black, the Brown, the poor of all colors, have the largest stake not because we have the most to lose, but because we have worked the hardest, and given the most, for what we have achieved,” Rangel once said. Rangel was the first African American to serve as Chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee. As chair and as a member of the Committee, Rangel played a central role in shaping U.S. tax legislation. He advocated for progressive tax reform, closing corporate loopholes, and increasing tax equity. Rangel was also a strong supporter of Social Security and Medicare and defended and expanded programs aimed at reducing poverty and supporting working-class families. The legendary Harlem Congressman also championed federal investment in affordable housing and urban infrastructure, especially for Harlem and other underserved communities. In a noteworthy policy move, Rangel also pushed to reinstate the military draft during the Iraq War—not to promote it, but to spark debate on the fairness of who bears the burden of war. Rangel earned a Purple Heart and a Bronze Star for his service in the Army during Korea. Rangel served as a member of the New York State Assembly from 1967 to 1971 and went on to defeat another New York political legend — Adam Clayton Powell Jr. in a primary, before winning in the general election in 1970. Rangel retired from Congress in 2016 at 86 years old. At a time when many are discussing the age of members of Congress and the many who have died in office over the past two years. Rangel was an exception who departed on his terms. Rangel’s seat in Congress would go to Dominican-born Adriano Espaillat. The moment represented a shift in Harlem’s demographics and the power of the Latino community in the Bronx. Rangel’s wife Alma Carter passed away last year. The two met in the 1950’s at the famous Savoy Ballroom in Harlem. They married in 1964 and have two children.
By Stacy M. Brown Black Press USA Senior National Correspondent
The Southern Poverty Law Center has identified 1,371 hate and antigovernment extremist groups operating across the United States in 2024. In its latest Year in Hate & Extremism report, the SPLC reveals how these groups are embedding themselves in politics and policymaking while targeting marginalized communities through intimidation, disinformation, and violence. “Extremists at all levels of government are using cruelty, chaos, and constant attacks on communities and our democracy to make us feel powerless,” said SPLC President Margaret Huang.
The report outlines how hard-right groups aggressively targeted diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives throughout 2024. Figures on the far right falsely framed DEI as a threat to white Americans, with some branding it a form of “white genocide.” After the collapse of Baltimore’s Francis Scott Key Bridge, a former Utah legislator blamed the incident on DEI, posting “DEI = DIE.”
Tactics ranged from local policy manipulation to threats of violence. The SPLC documented bomb threats at 60 polling places in Georgia, traced to Russian email domains. Similar threats hit Jewish institutions and Planet Fitness locations after far-right social media accounts attacked them for trans-inclusive policies. Telegram, which SPLC describes as a hub for hate groups, helped extremists cross-recruit between neo-Nazi, QAnon, and white nationalist spaces. The platform’s lax moderation allowed groups like the Terrorgram Collective—designated terrorists by the U.S. State Department—to thrive. Militia movements were also reorganized, with 50 groups documented in 2024. Many, calling themselves “minutemen,” trained in paramilitary tactics while lobbying local governments for official recognition. These groups shared personnel and ideology with white nationalist organizations. The manosphere continued to radicalize boys and young men. The Fresh & Fit podcast, now listed as a hate group, promoted misogyny while mocking and attacking Black women. Manosphere influencers used social media algorithms to drive youth toward male-supremacy content. Turning Point USA played a key role in pushing white nationalist rhetoric into mainstream politics. Its leader Charlie Kirk claimed native-born Americans are being replaced by immigrants, while the group advised on Project 2025 and organized Trump campaign events. “We know that these groups build their power by threatening violence, capturing political parties and government, and infesting the mainstream discourse with conspiracy theories,” said Rachel Carroll Rivas, interim director of the SPLC’s Intelligence Project. “By exposing the players, tactics, and code words of the hard right, we hope to dismantle their mythology and inspire people to fight back.”
The build-up for the Oval Office meeting between South African President Cyril Ramaphosa and President Donald Trump resulted in a spectacle of a Presidential show and tell. President Trump worked to support the alleged claims that thousands of white South African Farmers have been killed with nothing done to remedy the situation. Leaders from both countries, Elon Musk, world-renowned white Golfers from South Africa, and reporters attended the highly publicized press event in the Oval Office. Before the president showed a video, a reporter in the Oval Office sternly questioned Trump, asking, “What would it take for you to be convinced that there is no white genocide in South Africa?” President Ramaphosa immediately answered the question as President Trump said, “ I’d rather have him answer.” “It will take President Trump listening to the voices of South Africans, some of whom are his good friends,” said the South African president. Ramaphosa also emphasized it would have to take place at a “quiet” table so he could hear the facts. Another telling moment in the meeting was when President Trump could not answer South Africa’s president’s question about the location of some parts of the video he showed in the Oval Office. Ramaphosa said calmly with concern, “I would like to know where that is. Cause, this I have never seen.” However, Trump continued his assertion that white farmers are being killed throughout the meeting and warned the president of South Africa that before the November G-20 summit in South Africa, the issue must be handled. Ramaphosa said, “There is criminality in our country; people who do get killed, unfortunately, through criminal activity are not only white people. Most people killed are Black people.” Trump, in a passing moment in that press event, recognized the wrong of the deadly apartheid system in South Africa when the country was white minority rule from 1948 to 1994. During the deadly apartheid system, the white-led government enforced strict racial segregation rules against the Black majority in housing, employment, government, social gatherings, and facilities. Observers noted that President Ramaphosa kept his cool during the meeting and calmly corrected some of Trump’s false assertions with clear assertion of facts and requests for documentation of the charges of ‘white genocide’ being perpetrated by the Black controlled South African government.
By Stacy M. Brown Black Press USA Senior National Correspondent
Target Corporation is projecting a decline in annual sales and profits for 2025 as the retail giant struggles with fallout from its decision to end its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, pressure from new tariffs, and organized boycotts by Black consumers and media. The company reported first-quarter net sales of $23.8 billion, a 2.8% drop from the same period last year, and revised its full-year outlook downward, now forecasting a low single-digit decline in sales and adjusted earnings per share of $7.00 to $9.00.
Adjusted earnings for the quarter fell nearly 36% year-over-year to $1.30 per share, down from $2.03, when excluding a one-time $593 million pre-tax gain from a credit card interchange fee settlement. “Our team navigated a highly challenging environment and focused on delivering the outstanding assortment, experience, and value guests expect from Target,” Chairman and CEO Brian Cornell said during an investor call. “While our sales fell short of our expectations, we saw several bright spots in the quarter, including healthy digital growth, led by a 36 percent increase in same-day delivery through Target Circle 360, and our strongest designer collaboration in over a decade, Kate Spade for Target.” Cornell also acknowledged the backlash, saying, “We’re not satisfied with current performance and know we have opportunities to deliver faster progress on our roadmap for growth. This morning, we announced the establishment of a multi-year acceleration office led by Michael Fiddelke and several leadership changes. These steps forward are intended to build more speed and agility into how we operate and position key capabilities to drive long-term profitable growth.” Yet those changes are landing amid heightened scrutiny and organized resistance. In addition to financial pressures from tariffs, Target is now the focus of a national selective buying campaign launched by the Black Press of America after the company announced in January that it would phase out its DEI commitments. In a joint op-ed made available to millions of readers, Dr. Benjamin F. Chavis Jr., President and CEO of the National Newspaper Publishers Association (NNPA), and Bobby R. Henry Sr., NNPA Chair and publisher of the Westside Gazette, issued a searing indictment of the company’s direction. “As far back as October 2024, we sent a formal letter to Target CEO Brian Cornell detailing the company’s persistent refusal to invest in Black-owned newspapers and media outlets. That letter was met with silence. Silence, in the face of truth, is complicity. By ignoring our appeal, Mr. Cornell and Target have made clear that they do not value the voices, institutions, or the economic power of Black America,” they wrote. “Let us be clear: we will not shop where we are disrespected. Our dollars will not finance our own marginalization.”
Tanya Milton, Vice President and Advertising Director at The Savannah Tribune said the boycott is making an impact and that Target’s disengagement speaks volumes. “Their continued silence could mean them hoping not to draw attention to their losses,” Milton said. Asked how Black consumers should interpret the company’s decision to end its DEI programs, she added, “If they just got on board three years ago, then it’s not a big deal to them. Black consumers shopped there before they were onboard.”
She also addressed the broader consequences of Target’s failure to invest in Black-owned media. “Being visible helps to make your brand a household name,” she said. Target’s troubles continue to ripple through Wall Street. Shares fell nearly 7% after the earnings announcement and are down 33% year-to-date. Despite its digital gains and successful designer collaborations, Target reported a comparable store sales decline of 5.7%, even as digital sales grew 4.7%. Cornell told investors the company has “many levers” to mitigate the effects of tariffs, and that raising prices would only come as a “very last resort.” Still, for many, the damage is already done. “We therefore announce the continuation and intensification of the target-TARGET national selective buying campaign,” Chavis and Henry stated. “We call upon all freedom-loving people from across all segments of society who believe in economic justice, media equity, and corporate accountability to join us.”
(TriceEdneyWire.com) – In the first 100 days of the current Trump Administration term, over 250,000 federal employees have had their jobs cut, planned to be cut, or have taken a buyout, according to a recent New York Times tally. With a 46 percent staff reduction – 1,380 employees – the Department of Education is among the hardest hit agencies.
The recently released FY 2026 budget plan underscores the administration’s determination to shutter the agency and eliminate programs that support the nation’s strides to remain educationally competitive and economically viable in a global economy.
“The President’s Skinny Budget reflects funding levels for an agency that is responsibly winding down, shifting some responsibilities to the states, and thoughtfully preparing a plan to delegate other critical functions to more appropriate entities,” said Education Secretary Linda McMahon in a related statement. “The federal government has invested trillions of taxpayer dollars into an education system that is not driving improved student outcomes – we must change course and reorient taxpayer dollars toward proven programs that generate results for American students.”
For the fiscal year that begins October 01, an additional 15.3 percent agency cut would drop education funding another $12 billion from FY 2025’ $78.7 billion. Among these proposed cuts are programs that speak to 21st Century dynamics affecting higher education:
$980 million – an 80 percent reduction to the Federal Work-Study (FWS) program;
$75 million for Child Care Access Means Parents in School (CCAMPIS) for campus-based childcare services to parents of low-income parents enrolled in postsecondary education;
$64 million cut to Howard University, only federally chartered Historically Black College and University; and
$49 million from its Office of Civil Rights, a 35 percent reduction to the office that investigates claims of race, sex and other discrimination in schools.
These specific and modest programs respond to the needs of today’s college students that are quite different from those of yesteryear. The historical 4-year completion rate for an undergraduate degree at a young age has been shrinking for several years. Instead, the growing percentage of college students trend older in age, take longer to graduate, and in the case of Black students, often have children to care for as well. Even after graduation, today’s marketplace demands an ongoing challenge to update skills and education to remain competitive.
According to a recent policy brief by the Joint Center for Political and Economic Development:
“Black college students are more likely to be parents than other racial groups at both community colleges and four-year institutions. Over one in three (36 percent) of Black students enrolled in community colleges in 2020 were parents. Forty percent of Black women in college are raising children. Black single mothers comprise 30 percent of undergraduate students who are single mothers, and nearly 70 percent of Black single-mother students are first-generation college students. Black fathers make up 19 percent of student parents and are less likely to have access to childcare assistance than fathers of other races.”
CCAMPIS is designed to address this growing need. Competitive federal grant administered by the U.S. Department of Education, help colleges fund on-campus childcare for Pell-eligible students. Unfortunately, the program’s funding has never been enough to meet student parents’ needs. Fewer than 4,000 parent students have benefitted from the program when there are approximately 1.5 million student parents who have children under the age of six, according to the D.C.-based New America.
For now, the popular Pell Grant program continues to serve more than 6 million students from low-income households. But its maximum award per student is $7,395 for the 2025-2026 school year – not enough to cover the anticipated family contribution many schools expect for tuition and other expenses.
With this kind of demonstrated need for college assistance, it’s hard to understand why the Federal Work Study program would face the budget ax. Through its part-time jobs for undergraduate and graduate students with financial need, the monies earned lessen the need to borrow loans, while also encouraging work related to the student’s course of study or community service – with a very modest government investment.
When 78 percent of Black student parents have no family financial support for college, as the Joint Center report found, funding college financial support is not only good for Black America – it’s in the nation’s long-term interest.
The budget bottom line should recognize the huge difference between a handout and a hand up.
Charlene Crowell is a senior fellow with the Center for Responsible Lending. She can be reached at Charlene.crowell@responsiblelending.org”
Experts warn that Republicans’ plan to slash food assistance could devastate Alabama’s economy, increase hunger, and strain state resources.
By Alex Jobin, Alabama Political Reporters
Last week, Republican lawmakers in the U.S. House Agriculture Committee passed legislation that would cut as much as $300 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, also known as SNAP, which provides benefits to low-income families to subsidize their food and grocery costs.
More than 42 million Americans rely on SNAP to afford food, but Republicans are looking to gut the program in order to finance President Trump’s “big beautiful bill,” which, among other things, would expand tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.
APR spoke with Alabama Arise’s senior policy analyst, Carol Gundlach, to better understand what the Republican overhaul of SNAP entails and how cutting food stamps could affect Alabamians across the state. Gundlach began our conversation by detailing how the Republican proposal would shift the cost of administering SNAP from the federal government to the states, a move that would heavily impact Alabama’s General Fund. “Assuming that it passes in the form that came out of the House Agriculture Committee, the real simple bottom line is it would cost Alabama at least $115 million to $120 million in General Fund money if you wanted to maintain the SNAP program,”
Gundlach told APR. “Now, I say ‘at least’ because what the bill that came out of the Ag Committee does is it increases Alabama’s share of the cost of administering the SNAP program. It basically moves that from 50 percent to 75 percent. We think that would cost us $35 million more or less a year.” Gundlach explained that states could face even higher cost burdens under the proposal depending on their “error rate” when distributing SNAP benefits. “It would require that states pay for at least 5 percent of the actual cost of the food benefits that are distributed, but it will increase that amount based on the state ‘error rate.’ The error rate is a really complicated formula that looks at how much states overpaid or underpaid in benefits, and it looks at the timeliness of getting benefits out,” she explained. “It is not a measure of fraud and, you know, [U.S. Rep. Barry Moore, R-Ala.] during the committee discussion kept talking about the error rate representing fraud — that is simply a misunderstanding of what the error rate is. Alabama’s got one of the lowest error rates in the nation, but we’re at 7 percent, and we’ve always been real proud that we have such a good error rate. We are worried about how this formula is gonna work itself out. If we even just had to pay for 5 percent of benefits that would be a hit of about $90 million to the general fund.” According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Alabama could be hit with additional costs ranging from $86 million to $431 million depending on the state’s future error rates if the Republican legislation passes into law. Between 2003 and 2023, Alabama’s highest recorded error rate was 8.02 percent — under the Republicans’ proposal, that error rate would carry an estimated $344 million price tag for the state today. However, it is important to note that these cost estimates are based on the size of the population currently receiving SNAP benefits in Alabama. In reality, those costs would likely be lower than estimated if the legislation were to pass due to other provisions of the bill which would directly cut food benefits and terminate eligibility for many SNAP participants, thereby reducing Alabama’s financial obligation by kicking Alabamians off of SNAP. Gundlach said she does not know how the state will be able to afford the increased cost of administering SNAP without letting many Alabamians go hungry. “I simply can’t imagine how we could do this. I spend my life watching the budgets and I have no idea, in a time of slightly declining revenues but also all kinds of other increased costs, how on Earth the general fund could come up with that amount of money every year, year in and year out. And if they push us to more than 5 percent, which is possible, I really don’t see how we could do it,” Gundlach said. “And so that leaves the state in a really difficult position. They could try to push people off of SNAP — and there are some procedural ways that could be done under existing law — because if you get the population down, the benefits go down… but it’ll leave people out there hungry.” “And so there are implications for the state budget that I’m really worried about, but there are also implications for people who get SNAP benefits, because if they can’t get the SNAP benefits because the state can’t pay their match, then they’re left hungry and they’ve already cut food banks back,” she continued. “I have no idea how Congress thinks people can feed their families if this bill passes.” Gundlach also expressed that she views the legislation as a way to shift the blame for cutting social services away from federal lawmakers and instead pinning it on the states. “I think it’s really upsetting that what they’re basically doing is they want to cut access to SNAP, and to Medicaid, and to a number of other programs, but they don’t want Congress to have to take the heat. And so they’re just pushing it to the states, and they’re pushing the cost to the states, and then they’re going to let the Alabama legislature or the governor have to decide who gets hurt and who doesn’t, and that’s pretty awful,” Gundlach said. Gundlach also lambasted the Republicans’ explicit desire to slash programs like SNAP and Medicaid as a vehicle for financing further tax cuts for the ultra-rich. “Of course, that’s the the biggest factor here is [Republicans] have got this bill that extends the tax cuts that were passed eight years ago, which are cuts that disproportionately benefit the richest people in the country: millionaires and billionaires. I mean it really is a billionaire tax cut,” Gundlach said. “It would extend those tax cuts, but they’ve gotta pay for it under Congress’ rules, so how do you pay for it? Well, you could pay for it by increasing taxes on other people, increasing taxes on the rich and not giving them these tax cuts, or you can cut benefit programs for the poor. They’re choosing to cut food assistance for hungry families and hungry children and health care for the sick and the disabled in order to give tax cuts to billionaires, and it’s pretty awful. It’s pretty deplorable.” In 2024, over 750,000 Alabamians — 15 percent of the state’s total population — received SNAP benefits. SNAP also brought an average of 115,000 Alabamians, including 51,000 children, above the poverty line each year between 2015 and 2019. “The people who are on SNAP are disproportionately families with children in the household. They are disproportionately the elderly and the disabled and are just very low-income people. And a lot of them are, you know, the working poor — people who are working 20 hours a week as a cashier and are working hard to support their families. Those are the people who are going to pay the cost for this,” Gundlach noted. Beyond the immediate impact which reducing SNAP benefits would have on poorer Alabamians, Gundlach also highlighted the downstream consequences which these cuts could have on local businesses and the state economy. Currently, around 5,000 retail locations are authorized to sell food to SNAP beneficiaries in Alabama.
“Between [SNAP and Medicaid], we’ve got a really big population of Alabama that gets U.S. benefits, and they spend those SNAP benefits at grocery stores. The National Grocers Association and the Alabama Grocers Association are very concerned because they represent the little independent grocery stores, and it’s those independents that are most dependent on SNAP expenditures,” Gundlach noted. “So, the less SNAP money that gets spent at those grocery stores, that means little bitty towns are going to lose their Piggly Wiggly, they’re going to lose their independents — even Walmarts are going to get hurt,” she continued. “Those are jobs, those are locally owned businesses that employ local people, and they’re going to run the risk of having to lay people off or closing for good, leaving the whole community without a grocery store. Same thing would be true with Medicaid, they spend those benefits at doctor’s offices and hospitals and pharmacies. If we cut people off of Medicaid, we’re losing rural hospitals.” With Republican in-fighting over Trump’s budget package casting uncertainty on which domestic policy proposals will ultimately become law, Gundlach said she simply cannot predict whether or not the proposed SNAP cuts will actually take effect. Regardless, she said that Alabama Arise will continue to push back against such policies. “Alabama Arise and all of our partners all over the state are really working to engage our congressional delegation to understand how serious this would be for Alabama. And that’s true all over the country,” Gundlach said. Now that it has passed out of the House Agriculture committee, the legislation to cut SNAP is now being considered by the House Budget Committee where it must first pass before it can see a full floor vote in the chamber.
