Critics are voicing concerns about a GOP-backed initiative that would, for the first time, shift some food aid costs to states, potentially leading to budget cuts at the state level.
Republicans are eager to pass proposals that could result in high payment error rates affecting most of the costs under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) as part of an anticipated broader spending reduction and tax initiative. Yet, there are some within the party who seem uneasy about this approach.
“The critical factor is the data we rely on for error rates,” remarked Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) during a conversation on Friday. “It’s vital to ensure that this data is accurate and representative of the time when we’re making decisions.”
Recent USDA statistics indicated that payment error rates—essentially the rates of overpayments and underpayments—were over 60%, with the national average sitting around 11.68% for 2023.
Sullivan noted that the state had previously achieved far lower payment error rates before the pandemic and expects to see improvements soon. Still, he pointed out that the current rates remain higher than usual, which is concerning since cost-sharing is contingent upon these figures.
According to reports, Alaska’s error rates spiked when state officials indicated they had breached federal guidelines in order to continue providing assistance amid a backlog of applications.
Under an initial proposal from the Senate Agriculture Committee, Republicans are seeking to mandate states with a payment error rate over 6% since fiscal year 2028 to cover some SNAP benefits’ costs. Meanwhile, states below that threshold would not be required to contribute anything.
The plan includes provisions for states with elevated error rates to cover a larger share of their SNAP costs. Specifically, if a state’s error rate hits 6% or greater, it qualifies for a sliding scale that could see its allocation share rise between 5% and 15%.
However, Senate Republicans have revised their strategy after a setback related to their “state cost sharing” proposal, which was turned down by the Chamber of Commerce Rules Tribunal as they work towards a larger package they hope to pass.
The updated proposal permits states to select payment error figures from either 2025 or 2026 to determine matching requirements that will begin in 2028.
The committee clarified that for the next fiscal year, “state matches are determined based on payment error rates from fiscal year 2023,” asserting that states must contribute to SNAP cost rates if their error rates exceed 6%.
When asked about possible revisions to this plan, Senate Agriculture Committee Chair John Boozman (R-Ark.) noted on Friday that negotiations aimed to accommodate as many stakeholders as possible, which he believes has been largely successful.
Boozman acknowledged Alaska’s unique circumstances, emphasizing that everyone is making an effort to address specific issues. He hasn’t been informed of any changes but encouraged others to keep him in the loop if discussions regarding adjustments arise.
Under the streamlined process they are utilizing, Republicans can advance the legislation through the Chamber of Commerce with a simple majority. However, due to persistent Democratic opposition, they may need to offer some concessions within the GOP to ensure the bill’s passage, given their 53-seat majority.
Following a brief discussion about the SNAP proposal, Sen. Lisa Markowski (R-Ala.) remarked, “We’re still facing challenges with SNAP.”
Markowski expressed that the rollout remains quite difficult for them. While Republicans assert that the state cost-sharing plan aims to motivate states to enhance their error rate management, both Sullivan and Markowski aren’t the only ones expressing reservations about the current efforts.
Initially, the House plan stipulated that all states would need to cover 5% of the allocation costs for an earlier version of Trump’s proposal. However, this was revised amid concerns raised by other Republican members like Sen. Tommy Tuberville (Alabama) and Jim Justice (West Virginia).
When asked if he had coordinated with Boozman and Thune about this, Sullivan indicated he was “seeing everyone” on the matter.
“For me, it’s crucial to obtain data that’s as close to the date of your judgement as possible,” Sullivan added.
