SNAP, formerly known as food stamps, has long been a central part of the U.S. social safety net. But because it relies on annual congressional appropriations, the current political standoff in Washington is creating fresh uncertainty about how long the aid can continue uninterrupted.

A Lifeline for One in Eight Americans

SNAP provides electronic benefit transfer (EBT) cards that help low-income households purchase groceries. In the 2024 fiscal year, the program cost more than $100 billion, offering an average of $187 per month to roughly 41.7 million people.

While other safety-net programs like Social Security and Medicaid are insulated from shutdown effects, SNAP depends on ongoing federal budget approval. That vulnerability has raised alarms among state agencies and anti-poverty advocates as the shutdown stretches past its first month.

“The question marks are trending in a bad direction for November,” said Carolyn Vega, associate director of policy analysis at Share Our Strength, a national anti-hunger organization.

Federal Warnings to States

On October 10, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) instructed state agencies not to transmit certain files to contractors responsible for processing EBT payments for November. The warning effectively signaled that funding beyond October was uncertain unless Congress reaches a new spending agreement.

Different states send payment data at varying times of the month, meaning the shutdown’s impact could hit households unevenly. For now, October benefits remain secure, but November payments are increasingly in doubt.

If the shutdown continues, millions of families may face delayed or canceled benefits, creating potential ripple effects in grocery stores and local economies that rely heavily on federal food aid spending.

Funding Shortfalls and Fiscal Challenges

The easiest way to restore SNAP’s long-term funding would be for lawmakers to end the shutdown. Short of that, states or federal agencies would need to find billions in temporary funds to keep the program operational.

SNAP costs roughly $8 billion per month—far exceeding smaller nutrition programs such as the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), which recently received $300 million in emergency funding from the Trump administration to stay afloat.

Replicating that kind of stopgap measure for SNAP would require far more money and coordination than most states can afford.

Peter Hadler, deputy commissioner of Connecticut’s Department of Social Services, told state lawmakers that even if states cover the costs temporarily, the federal government is unlikely to reimburse them later. He also cautioned that without federal funding, the EBT system could shut down entirely at the retail level—preventing even those with existing balances from using their cards.

State-Level Alarm and Economic Concerns

New Mexico, where more than one in five residents depends on SNAP, faces one of the highest risks. The program injects roughly $90 million monthly into the state’s economy, and any disruption could be devastating.

“I think it’s direct harm to New Mexicans, to our communities and to our economy that is unprecedented,” said state Rep. Nathan Small, a Democrat and chair of New Mexico’s main budget committee.

Charles Sallee, director of the state legislature’s budget and accountability office, said his office is still verifying whether the warnings are logistical or part of broader federal negotiations. “We’re following up to verify whether food stamps are really out of money or if this is just a tactic that the administration is playing in the overall negotiation,” Sallee told lawmakers.

In Minnesota, the Department of Children, Youth, and Families directed local counties and tribal governments to pause new SNAP applications after Wednesday. The state plans to notify current recipients by October 21 that benefits for November may not be issued unless the shutdown ends.

“An interruption in receiving food assistance can be very disruptive—even dire—for the lives of Minnesota’s families,” said Tikki Brown, the agency’s commissioner.

Policy Changes Add to SNAP Uncertainty

The shutdown coincides with new federal rules that tighten eligibility for food aid. Under a policy and tax law passed by Congress and signed by President Donald Trump in July, several key exemptions have been removed.

Adults with children aged 14 to 17 must now meet work requirements to continue receiving benefits. The same applies to older recipients between 55 and 64, who previously were exempt. These changes took effect this month and could lead to benefit losses beginning in January.

Additional cost shifts will come in the years ahead. Starting in October 2026, states will be required to cover three-fourths of SNAP’s administrative expenses. By 2027, states with higher benefit error rates will also be responsible for paying part of the program’s direct costs.

Even if Congress reaches a deal to end the shutdown, those long-term structural changes will remain unless lawmakers amend the legislation.

Economic Ripple Effects of a Shutdown on Food Aid

Economists and food policy experts warn that halting SNAP could have a cascading effect on the broader economy. The program injects billions into local grocery markets, helping sustain retail jobs and stabilize food demand during economic downturns.

According to the USDA, every dollar in SNAP spending generates roughly $1.50 in economic activity. A sudden freeze would not only increase food insecurity but also reduce consumer spending at thousands of supermarkets and small stores nationwide.

Local food banks and charities, already stretched thin, say they would struggle to fill the gap if federal aid stops. “We can’t replace the scale of a program like SNAP,” Vega said. “It’s a backbone of the national food security system.”

A Growing Urgency in Washington

As the budget impasse continues, pressure is mounting on Congress and the White House to reach a compromise. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have acknowledged the growing humanitarian and economic risks of prolonged gridlock.

But despite repeated calls from governors, advocacy groups, and state officials, there has been little public progress toward a funding deal. Until then, millions of Americans—many of them children, seniors, and working families—remain caught in uncertainty.

The longer the shutdown continues, the more likely it is that the country’s largest food assistance program will face delays or cutoffs, deepening the crisis for those who rely on it most.

Source: AP News – Food assistance is safe through October, but it may be at risk if the shutdown continues

The post SNAP Benefits Secure Through October, But Millions Face Uncertainty If Shutdown Persists appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

Egg prices have skyrocketed, and with no relief in sight, consumers can expect to pay even more in the coming months, especially as Easter approaches and demand surges.

As of December, the average price for a dozen eggs reached $4.15 nationwide. While this is slightly lower than the record-high price of $4.82 set in 2022, experts predict that prices will rise another 20% this year. For some shoppers, the situation is even worse: prices are already more than double the national average, and many grocery stores are facing empty shelves. Organic and cage-free eggs are particularly expensive, and some stores have even implemented purchase limits.

A Staple Food Becoming a Luxury

Minneapolis resident Sage Mills shared her frustration: “It’s just robbery. Eggs used to be a staple food for us, but now you might as well just go out to eat.”

But what’s behind the surge in prices?

The Bird Flu Crisis

The ongoing bird flu outbreak that began in 2022 is the primary culprit behind the soaring egg prices. The flu spreads rapidly, and when detected on a poultry farm, the entire flock is slaughtered to prevent further contamination. With some massive egg farms housing over a million chickens, even a few cases of bird flu can lead to a severe supply shortage.

The process of dealing with outbreaks—disposing of infected birds, disinfecting barns, and bringing in new flocks—can take months. Since the outbreak began, over 145 million chickens, turkeys, and other birds have been slaughtered, most of them egg-laying hens.

In addition, the passage of cage-free egg laws in 10 states has disrupted supply chains further. These laws mandate that chickens have a minimum amount of space or be cage-free. In states like California, Massachusetts, and Michigan, the transition to cage-free eggs has pushed prices even higher. For example, at a Target in Chicago, a dozen conventional eggs was priced at $4.49, while cage-free eggs were selling for $6.19.

Why Is the Virus So Difficult to Control?

Bird flu is primarily spread by wild birds, such as ducks and geese, which carry the virus without getting sick. This allows the virus to mutate and thrive as wild birds migrate. The flu spreads easily through bird droppings or any interaction between farm-raised poultry and wild birds. It can even be brought into farms on workers’ boots or vehicles.

Unlike previous outbreaks, this one hasn’t been quelled by summer heat, as the virus found a new host in dairy cattle last March. While cattle don’t die from bird flu, their sicknesses provide more opportunities for the virus to spread. Additionally, more than 60 people have contracted bird flu since last March, with one death, though no evidence suggests it spreads from person to person.

Efforts to Combat the Virus

Farmers are taking extensive precautions to protect their flocks. Many have installed truck washes to disinfect vehicles entering the farm and require workers to shower and change clothes before entering poultry barns. Some farms even use lasers to keep wild birds away.

Additionally, dairy farmers are isolating sick cattle and performing extra testing to prevent further outbreaks. Despite these efforts, vaccination for poultry remains impractical, as it would require vaccinating millions of chickens, and many countries may refuse to buy meat from vaccinated birds.

While no bird flu-infected animals are allowed in the food supply, experts assure the public that cooking meat to 165°F (74°C) kills the virus, and pasteurization kills it in milk.

The Financial Toll

The financial toll of the bird flu outbreak has been staggering. While it’s hard to estimate how much individual farmers have spent on biosecurity measures—like sealing barns and building shower houses—the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has spent over $1.14 billion compensating farmers for lost birds. The USDA also allocated more than $576 million for its own response efforts.

The bird flu has also affected the prices of turkey, chicken, and milk, leading to further pressure on grocery bills.

At a Minneapolis supermarket, manager Mike Vickers expressed the difficulty in managing egg prices: “It’s the first time in my life that I’ve ever had to be kind of embarrassed about what I’m selling eggs for.” Despite paying $7.45 per dozen, the store is only making 14 cents on each dozen sold.

The Bottom Line

Egg prices are not likely to return to normal anytime soon. The ongoing bird flu outbreak, coupled with state laws on cage-free eggs, continues to put pressure on the supply chain. With no immediate end in sight to the crisis, shoppers will likely face higher prices, limited availability, and frustration at the grocery store for the foreseeable future.

Source

The post Egg Shortages and Price Hikes: What’s Causing the Surge? appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

Tom Vilsack, the longest-serving Agriculture Secretary in U.S. history, has strong opinions about Democrats and rural America — and he’s uniquely qualified to share them. With eight years under President Obama and four more under President Biden, plus time as Iowa governor, state senator, and mayor, Vilsack has been a central figure in rural policymaking.

Despite significant investments in agriculture and rural innovation, Vilsack is frustrated by the lack of recognition from rural communities. Shortly after the 2024 election, he invited me to discuss why Democrats aren’t resonating with rural voters and what could be done to change that.

The Rural Challenge

Vilsack believes Democrats focus too much on programs and not enough on vision. Reflecting on his 1998 Iowa gubernatorial race, he credited his victory to a unifying vision: making Iowa the “food capital of the world.” Voters responded to leadership with clear direction, even if they didn’t fully grasp the specifics.

“The problem,” he explained, “is that we haven’t explained to rural folks what’s happened to them and why.” He traced rural America’s struggles back to the 1970s when the Nixon administration shifted agriculture to a market-based system. The result? A consolidation of farms, fewer farm families, and shrinking rural communities. “We’re addressing it now,” he emphasized, “but rebuilding after 50 years of decline takes time.”

What’s Been Done — And What’s Missing

Under the Biden administration, Vilsack’s USDA made over 10,000 investments to support small and mid-sized farms, promote climate-smart agriculture, and diversify revenue streams. These initiatives aim to move beyond the “get big or get out” mentality that has dominated agriculture.

For example, the USDA introduced new climate-smart commodities, incentivized sustainable farming practices, and helped farmers convert agricultural waste into valuable resources. These changes are creating economic opportunities, but Vilsack admits that the message isn’t reaching voters.

“Not enough Democrats spend time in rural places,” he said. “Presence matters. You have to be there, promoting the vision and explaining how these policies improve lives.”

Media and Messaging Failures

Vilsack also pointed to the decline of local and regional media as a major barrier to reaching rural voters. “The Des Moines Register is a shadow of its former self,” he said, criticizing national outlets for ignoring the USDA’s work. “This department impacts 15% of the population and 75% of the land mass, yet it doesn’t get the attention it deserves.”

The lack of cultural awareness among urban politicians and journalists further widens the divide. Rural voters, Vilsack argued, feel overlooked and unappreciated, compounding their frustration with Democrats.

The Way Forward

To win back rural America, Vilsack urged Democrats to adopt a clear economic message that acknowledges the struggles of rural communities and offers tangible solutions. He stressed the need for long-term engagement, not just during election seasons.

“Since 1981, we’ve lost nearly 545,000 farms — one in six. If we don’t address this, rural America will continue to shrink, and so will its contributions to our military, economy, and national identity,” he warned.

Vilsack remains hopeful that the investments made under the Biden administration will yield results in the years ahead. But success depends on whether Democrats can effectively communicate their vision and demonstrate that rural America is central to their priorities.

“Rural folks are incredible,” Vilsack concluded. “They deserve our respect, attention, and a seat at the table.”

Source

The post The Forgotten Vote: How Democrats Can Reconnect with Rural Communities appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.