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
The government reopens after 43 days. USDA resumes key reports, weighs farm aid, and watches China’s next move on U.S. soybean purchases.
USMEF President and CEO Dan Halstrom shares how recent trade talks are influencing U.S. red meat global sales and the importance of key trade agreements like the USMCA.
Iowa Ag Secretary Naig recaps discussions surrounding a potential federal aid package for farmers and shares insights on producer sentiment in the Heartland.
Enforceable origin labels could create clearer premiums for U.S. cattle and address concerns some producers have had with competition from foreign imported beef.
A court decision that overturns Enlist labels would remove two major herbicides from use and reshape EPA’s future mitigation policies for other pesticides.
Tyson expects another year of beef-segment losses due to tight cattle supplies, even as chicken, pork, and prepared foods strengthen overall margins.