Big, Beautiful Bill doesn’t include any common-sense policies to improve efficiencies, according to Rep Craig

“Republicans want states to do their dirty work and take food away from people, and it doesn’t end there.”

Right now, a marathon debate is still going on in the House Rules Committee.

They are debating President Trump’s Big, Beautiful Bill, which could have big implications for farmers.

A pre-dawn debate started around 1 AM ET and is still underway.
Ag leadership is there. Committee Chair GT Thompson earlier broke down the cost savings in his portion of the budget, but the ranking member of the Ag Committee called the process shameful, reflecting on potential cuts for SNAP.

According to Rep. Angie Craig, “It puts a huge burden on the states by forcing them to pay for anywhere from 5-25% of food assistance. Chair Fox, the governor of your state said, ‘If Congress does forward with these plans, our state will be forced into a perilous budget decision. Should North Carolinians lose access to food, or should we get rid of other essential services?’ North Carolina’s on the hook for up to $700 million per year under this proposal. That’s the equivalent of 8,900 public school teacher salaries in North Carolina. Republicans want states to do their dirty work and take food away from people, and it doesn’t end there.”

The Congresswoman went on to say that the Big, Beautiful Bill does not include any common-sense policies to help improve program efficiencies as some claim, and instead of helping those who need it most, the cuts will fund tax breaks for large corporations and the super wealthy instead.

Related Stories
API said it stands ready to work with Congress to develop a balanced approach to E15 legislation that promotes fuel choice, supports investment certainty, and contributes to a stable and fair marketplace for American consumers.
Lawmakers are pressing for answers on how Washington’s “managed trade” approach — keeping leverage through long-term tariffs — will affect farmers, global markets, and future export opportunities.
In the meantime, Senate Majority Leader John Thune is asking that farmers be allowed to use marketing assistance loans to help stay afloat.
Beef industry groups seem to agree — market-based pricing, not federal intervention, best supports rancher livelihoods and long-term beef supply stability.
Cattle groups say additional imports would offer little relief for consumers but could erode rancher confidence as the industry begins to rebuild herds.
Understanding how these tax provisions interact will be key for farmers planning long-term equipment purchases or transfers within the family.