Children from the KU Kids Deanwood Child Care Center complete a mural celebrating the launch of a local child tax credit in 2021 in Washington, D.C. New research suggests cities could significantly reduce childhood poverty by creating their own child tax credit programs. (Photo by Jemal Countess/Getty Images for Community Change)

Child tax credits are becoming more popular across the country, with more than a dozen states offering them as financial relief toward the cost of raising kids.

But new research suggests cities could significantly reduce child poverty by offering child tax credit programs of their own.

An analysis by the Center on Poverty and Social Policy at Columbia University and the left-leaning Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy found that municipal programs could move the needle with relatively small amounts of money: offering $1,000 or less per year to low- and middle-income families could cut child poverty rates by 25% in several cities.  

Researchers say this sort of new assistance would not only boost household finances, but also likely create more demand for local businesses, stabilize housing markets and increase local tax revenue.

The study focused on 14 cities: Baltimore; Charlotte, North Carolina; Chicago; Denver; Houston; Jacksonville, Florida; Los Angeles; Minneapolis; New York; Oakland, California; Philadelphia; Phoenix; Seattle; and the District of Columbia. The analysis found that most of those cities could make significant gains by spending less than 15% of municipal revenues on new child credit programs. 

In Minneapolis, for example, researchers said a new program that cost less than $30 million per year would cut the city’s poverty levels by half when accounting for existing state and federal credits. (The mayor there has recommended spending about $2.03 billion in the 2026 fiscal year budget.) 

The prospect of creating new tax credit programs would likely pose financial and logistical challenges. Cities already are juggling many other priorities including public safety and housing affordability, while at the same time facing what some experts have characterized as a “fiscal crisis” from growing climate change costs, federal funding cuts and declining downtown activity.

Some cities, including Baltimore, New York and Philadelphia, have city income taxes that could incorporate a child tax credit. But, the research noted, cities without that tax managed to distribute pandemic recovery funds through basic income programs. That experience shows cities could create their own standalone applications, leverage IRS data-sharing agreements or  work with third-party administrators.

“So you could use a similar sort of outreach approach, which wouldn’t necessarily be as comprehensive or systematic as a city that already has its own income tax system in place, but it’s a potential option,” said Ryan Vinh, an author of the study and a research analyst at the Center on Poverty and Social Policy. 

State interest in creating or expanding child tax credits boomed after the pandemic-era expansion of the federal child tax credit delivered cash directly to millions. That move quickly lifted millions of children out of poverty, researchers found. But the expanded tax credit expired in 2021 — leading to a doubling in the nation’s childhood poverty rate in 2022.

Advocates favor refundable tax credits that provide money directly to families. While parents must still file tax returns to receive the benefit, refundable credits give parents funds even if they earn too little to owe income tax, providing financial relief for groceries, medical care or rent. 

This year, several conservative-led states explored new child tax credit programs, though proposals offering the biggest benefits to families fizzled in Indiana and Ohio. So far, no city has implemented its own credit. 

While many cities and states are facing tight budget constraints, Vinh said a reduction in federal support will likely put more pressure on local governments to tackle challenges like poverty. The federal government has slashed funding for safety net programs including Medicaid and the nation’s largest food assistance program, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. 

“A lot of these things will either lead to the erosion of benefits over time, a loss of benefits, or kind of a decline in what families are able to receive,” Vinh said. “We don’t fully know the number yet, but we do know that child poverty will most likely increase as these program restrictions increase.” 

Stateline reporter Kevin Hardy can be reached at khardy@stateline.org

An empty high school classroom. (Dan Forer | Getty Images)

The Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (DPI) released its 2025-26 general school aid data this week, showing that 71% of public school districts will receive less general school aid this year, while over $350 million in general aid will be diverted to voucher schools.

Each year DPI is required by state law to release the certified aid figures by Oct. 15. The data for the 2025-26 school year shows that of 421 districts, 111 — or 26% — will receive more aid, while 301 districts — or 71% — will receive less. The numbers replace those from the estimate released in July, which had shown a projected 65% of schools would receive less aid. 

DPI noted in a release that the state’s total general aid remained flat this year at $5.58 billion. The Republican-led Legislature decided during the recent state budget process not to provide additional general aid to public school districts.

The distribution of general aid funds is determined by a formula that considers property valuation, student enrollment and shared costs. When school districts lose state aid, they do not lose school revenue authority, meaning many school districts will be left to decide whether to increase local property taxes to make up the difference or make more budget cuts. 

Democratic lawmakers, who have repeatedly called for increasing general school aid, blamed their Republican colleagues for the numbers during a virtual press conference Thursday morning.

Sen. Jeff Smith (D-Brunswick) said that data “provided a harsh reality check for school districts that their state Legislature, specifically the Republican-controlled state Legislature, which they have controlled for 30 out of the last 32 years, does not view them as a priority.” 

“When Democrats win a majority in the state Senate, our schools will not have to fear this Oct.15 date,” Smith said, adding that Democrats are “committed to investing in the future of Wisconsin children and re-establishing our state as one of the leaders in K-12 education as it once was.”

“This system that our state has been forced to adopt is not sustainable,” Sen. Jodi Habush Sinykin (D- Whitefish Bay) said. In lieu of state funding, school districts in Wisconsin have turned to raising property taxes through referendum, which must be approved by voters, in order to meet their financial obligations, including paying staff salaries, purchasing educational materials and building costs.

After the state budget was signed, some school leaders warned that the trend of relying on property taxes would continue without a state general aid increase. 

“Due to the Legislature’s failure to fund our schools, Wisconsin already has one of the highest property tax rates in the country, and if our communities continue to be forced to referendum, those tax rates will continue to rise, making our state even more expensive than it already is. Wisconsin residents are depending on their elected officials to rein in the skyrocketing costs of living in our state,” Habush-Sinykin said. “Yet, the Republican-controlled Legislature has no problem forcing their constituents to suffer under continuously rising property taxes.”

Viroqua School Board President Angie Lawrence said during the press conference that the system is bolstering inequity in Wisconsin schools. 

“The school districts and areas of high poverty are generally failing when trying to pass a referendum and the wealthy districts generally are passing their referendum when going to their communities… Is this who we really want to be?” Lawrence asked. “Don’t you think that our tax dollars should be supporting every student equally so that each student has a path to academic excellence, and we shouldn’t have to go to referendum in order to provide a high quality education for our students?”

School voucher programs grow

Alongside funding for public schools, the DPI also released data on the costs of the state’s school voucher programs, which use taxpayer dollars to cover the cost of tuition for students who attend private and charter schools.

The estimated annual cost for the state’s voucher programs in the 2025-26 school year overall is about $700.7 million.

According to the DPI data, $357.5 million will be reduced from general school aid to go towards private voucher schools in 2025-26. This includes $260.9 million for the Wisconsin Parental Choice Program, $44.4 million for the Racine Parental Choice Program and $52.2 million for the Special Needs Scholarship Program. 

The rest of the $700.7 million going toward voucher schools will come from the state’s general purpose revenue to fund students in the Milwaukee voucher program as well as for students in the Racine voucher program who enrolled before the 2015-16 school year. The Milwaukee program is estimated to cost $336 million.

Enrollment in all four of the state’s school choice programs rose by 2,349 students in the 2025-26 school year, reaching a high of 60,972 students. 

The Milwaukee program grew by 235 students, the Racine program shrank by 14 students, the statewide program grew by 1,814 students and the special needs program grew by 419 students. 

Organizations that support school voucher programs had mixed reactions — celebrating the growth, but also cautioning that it was modest compared to previous years.

“Lawmakers in Madison should continue to prioritize protecting these private-school options for all students,” said Carol Shires, vice president of operations for School Choice Wisconsin. “This milestone validates the strong support from Wisconsin’s political leaders for strengthening the financial foundation of parental choice programs.”

School Choice Wisconsin, the largest school choice lobbying group in the state, also noted in its press release that the growth comes as an enrollment cap on the statewide Wisconsin Parental Choice Program is set to expire in the 2026-27 school year. 

“[The caps coming off] will allow more families – including those now on waiting lists – to benefit from the nation’s longest-standing program committed to educational freedom,” School Choice Wisconsin said.

Caps on school voucher program participation, which limits the percentage of students in a district who can participate, have been increasing by 1% per year since 2017 and reached 10% of a school district’s enrollment in the 2025-26 school year. When the nation’s first school voucher program launched in Milwaukee in 1990, enrollment was limited to no more than 1% of the Milwaukee Public Schools student population. When the statewide program launched in 2013, enrollment was limited to just 500 students and no more than 1% of a district’s enrollment. 

According to the Institute for Reforming Government, a conservative think tank, this year’s numbers represent stable growth for the Milwaukee, special needs and independent charter school programs, but the Wisconsin Parental Choice Program had its lowest growth since 2017-2018.

Quinton Klabon, the organization’s senior research director, urged supporters of school choice to not be complacent. 

“Informing parents, expanding high-quality schools, and protecting schools from hostile red tape are high priorities. Otherwise, the baby bust will close choice schools,” Klabon said in a statement.

The total number of schools participating in the statewide program has risen from 403 schools in 2024-25 to 415 schools in 2025-26.

Republicans have introduced some legislation this year to support enrollment in voucher programs. AB 460 from Rep. Cindi Duchow (R-Delafield) would change state law to ensure that siblings of a student who participated in a voucher program would be eligible for enrollment. AB 415, coauthored by Rep. Shae Sortwell (R-Two Rivers) would prohibit DPI from requiring documents to verify a student’s residence unless their residence has changed from a previous verification. 

Democratic lawmakers and public education stakeholders expressed concerns about what the school voucher enrollment numbers will mean for the state’s public schools.

Lawrence of Viroqua called attention to the amount of money going to the Academy of Excellence, a Milwaukee virtual private school that has been criticized for misusing public funds and for blurring the line between homeschooling and voucher schools. Students who are homeschooled in Wisconsin aren’t supposed to receive public funding under state law.

“The Academy of Excellence is not excellent,” Lawrence said. “It is not meeting the requirements of high standards of public education, and yet it received over $40 million in tax dollars from the state of Wisconsin [in the 2024-25 school year]… They are funding families that choose to homeschool without the cost of bricks and mortar, or the transparency of how they’re spending the tax dollars they receive. If our state wants to make improvements in education for our students, let’s put our money where our mouth is and spend our tax dollars to improve public education so we can provide the highest academic outcomes for each child.” 

The Academy of Excellence is estimated to receive over $50 million in 2025-26 from the state with over 4,000 students enrolled. Those enrollment numbers include students in various voucher programs throughout the state — 808 students from the Milwaukee program, 200 from the Racine program, 3,340 from the statewide program and 63 who are enrolled in the special needs program.

Democratic lawmakers in recent months have introduced an array of bills aimed at limiting voucher school programs and increasing transparency surrounding the costs. 

This week Sen. Chris Larson (D-Milwaukee) is circulating draft legislation that would bar virtual schools from being able to participate in the voucher program. 

Rep. Christian Phelps (D-Eau Claire) has introduced AB 307, which would eliminate the sunset on the voucher program caps, leaving them at 10% into the future, and AB 496, which would require an annual verification of the income of voucher students’ families. (Currently, there is an income cap to enroll in the programs of 220% for the Wisconsin Parental Choice Program and 300% for the Milwaukee and Racine programs. If a student is continuing in a program or was on a waiting list, they are not required to meet income limits.) Lawmakers have also proposed legislation to disclose voucher costs on property tax bills across the state.

Habush-Sinykin said on the call that the voucher program caps coming off is a “crisis” facing the state’s education system. However, she said advancing bills that would change the state’s trajectory will likely take new leadership in the Senate and Assembly. 

“It’s really up to all of us to explain how important it is to have a change in the legislative leadership so that we can have bills… like keeping caps on vouchers, etc., be heard and voted on,” Habush Sinykin said.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

The U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., is pictured on Oct. 8, 2025. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate returned to Capitol Hill on Tuesday following a four-day weekend, but neither Republicans nor Democrats appeared ready to work toward ending the government shutdown following another failed vote to advance a short-term funding bill. 

President Donald Trump and administration officials also didn’t seem inclined toward compromise anytime soon, if ever, previewing more spending cuts and layoffs as soon as this week. 

“We are closing up programs that are Democratic programs that we wanted to close up or that we never wanted to happen and now we’re closing them up and we’re not going to let them come back,” Trump said. “We’re not closing up Republican programs because we think they work.”

Trump said his administration will release a list of projects it’s cancelled or plans to eliminate funding for on Friday — another step that’s unlikely to bring about the type of bipartisanship and goodwill needed to end the shutdown. 

The White House’s Office of Management and Budget posted on social media it will try to alleviate some of the repercussions of the funding lapse and reduce the size of government while waiting for at least five more Senate Democrats to break ranks to advance a stopgap spending bill. 

“OMB is making every preparation to batten down the hatches and ride out the Democrats’ intransigence,” agency staff wrote. “Pay the troops, pay law enforcement, continue the RIFs, and wait.” 

RIFs refers to Reductions in Force, the technical term for layoffs. The administration announced Friday it sent notices to employees at several departments, including Education, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, and Treasury telling them they would soon not have jobs.

Labor unions representing hundreds of thousands of federal workers filed a lawsuit to block the layoffs from taking effect. The judge overseeing that case scheduled a Wednesday hearing to listen to arguments before deciding whether to grant a temporary restraining order. 

Back pay in question

The Trump administration has made several moves during the shutdown that are not typically taken during prolonged funding lapses.

Trump and Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought have indicated they may not provide back pay to furloughed federal workers after the shutdown ends, which is required by a 2019 law. And they have sought to cancel funding approved by Congress for projects in sections of the country that vote for Democrats. 

The Pentagon is also reprogramming money to provide pay for active duty military members this week, despite Congress not taking action on that issue.

The Trump administration’s efforts to reduce the size of government during the shutdown are widely seen as an effort to pressure Democrats to vote for the stopgap spending bill, but they haven’t had any measurable effect so far. 

Another failed Senate vote

The Senate deadlocked for an eighth time Tuesday evening on the House-passed funding bill that would last through Nov. 21. The vote was 49-45. The bill needs at least 60 senators to advance under the chamber’s rules. 

Nevada Democratic Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto and Maine independent Sen. Angus King voted with Republicans to advance their bill. Pennsylvania Democratic Sen. John Fetterman, who has been voting to advance the bill, didn’t vote. Kentucky GOP Sen. Rand Paul voted no.

Trump said during his afternoon event he wanted Democrats to sign something to reopen government, though it wasn’t clear what he meant since lawmakers in the Senate vote by giving a thumbs up or down. 

“This was a position that’s being forced upon us by Democrats and all they have to do is just sign a piece of paper saying we’re going to keep it going the way it is,” Trump said. “You know, it’s nothing. It shouldn’t even be an argument. They’ve signed it many times before.”

No strategy

During a morning press conference, House Speaker Mike Johnson said he would not change his approach or negotiate with Democrats on a stopgap measure. 

“I don’t have any strategy,” the Louisiana Republican said. “The strategy is to do the right and obvious thing and keep the government moving for the people.”

Johnson has kept the House out of session since late September but has been holding daily press conferences with members of his leadership team to criticize Democrats and press them to advance the short-term funding bill. 

GOP Rep. Virginia Foxx of North Carolina, the chairwoman of the House Rules Committee, said starting Tuesday an additional 400,000 civilian federal workers would receive partial paychecks due to the government shutdown. Those federal employees work at the departments of Education and Interior, as well as the National Science Foundation. 

“This will be the last paycheck that these federal workers receive until Democrats grow a spine and reopen the federal government,” she said. 

Last week, 700,000 civilian federal workers received about 70% of their usual paycheck, due to the shutdown. Those employees work for the Executive Office of the President, Health and Human Services, Department of Veterans Affairs, civilians at the Defense Department, NASA, General Services Administration and the Office of Personnel Management, among others.

Active duty military members were set to miss their first paycheck Wednesday until the Pentagon shifted $8 billion in research funds to pay the troops on time. 

U.S. Capitol Police Labor Committee Chairman Gus Papathanasiou released a statement Tuesday that the thousands of officers who protect members of Congress missed a full paycheck Friday. 

“The longer the shutdown drags on, the harder it becomes for my officers,” Papathanasiou wrote. “Banks and landlords do not give my officers a pass because we are in a shutdown — they still expect to be paid. 

“Unfortunately, Congress and the Administration are not in active negotiations, and everyone is waiting for the other side to blink. That is not how we are going to end this shutdown, and the sooner they start talking, the quicker we can end this thing.”

Maryland, Virginia Dems rally

Seeking to pressure the Trump administration to negotiate, Democratic lawmakers who represent Maryland and Virginia, where many federal workers live, held a rally outside the Office of Management and Budget in the morning.

Virginia Sen. Mark Warner rebuked GOP leaders, including OMB Director Vought, for using federal workers as “political pawns” and “trading chips in some political debate.”

He said that when an agreement is brokered to reopen government, the Trump administration must adhere to it and not illegally withhold or cancel funds approved by Congress, which holds the power of the purse. 

“We’ll get the government reopened, but we have to make sure that when a deal is struck, it is kept,” Warner said. “Russ Vought at the OMB cannot pick and choose which federal programs to fund after Congress and the president have come together.”

Maryland Sen. Angela Alsobrooks sought to encourage Republicans to negotiate with Democrats to extend the enhanced tax credits that are set to expire at the end of the year for people who purchase health insurance through the Affordable Care Act marketplace. 

“The Republicans would prefer to shut down the government than to ensure your family has affordable health care,” Alsobrooks said. “It is more than shameful, it is immoral and it is the kind of immorality that will hurt our country for generations to come.”

Democrats in Congress insisted before the shutdown began and for the 14 days it’s been ongoing that they will not vote to advance the short-term government funding bill without a bipartisan agreement on the expiring subsidies. 

GOP leaders have said they will negotiate on that issue, but only after Democrats advance the stopgap spending bill through the Senate.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries argued during an afternoon press conference that Republicans need Democratic votes in the Senate to advance the stopgap funding bill and should try to negotiate a deal.

“We need them to abandon their failed ‘my way or the highway’ approach,” the New York Democrat said. “If Democratic votes are needed to reopen the government, which is the case, then this has to be a bipartisan discussion to find a bipartisan resolution to reopen the government.”

This report has been clarified to say President Donald Trump referred to “Democrat programs.”

A man closes the entrance to Fort McHenry National Monument and Historic Shrine on Oct. 3 in Baltimore because of the federal government shutdown. States are currently covering costs of some federal programs, but it’s unclear whether they will be repaid once the government reopens. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

States are doing what they generally do during a federal government shutdown: continuing to operate programs serving some of the neediest people.

That means schools are still serving federally subsidized meals and states are distributing funding for the federal food stamp program. For now.

If the shutdown drags on and federal dollars run out, states can only keep programs going for so long. States may choose to pay for some services themselves so residents keep their benefits.

But this time, state leaders have new worries about getting reimbursed for federal costs once the federal spending impasse is resolved. That’s traditionally been the practice following a shutdown, but the Trump administration’s record of pulling funding and targeting Democratic-led states has some officials worried about what comes after the shutdown.

Many states already struggled to balance their own budgets this year. And some fear going without federal reimbursement for shutdown costs could force states to make painful cuts to their own budget priorities.

Nevada State Treasurer Zach Conine, a Democrat, said the administration has not made good on its word to states in recent months — freezing some congressionally approved funding and cutting already awarded grants. So it’s likewise unclear whether the federal government will follow previous practice and reimburse states for covering shutdown costs of crucial federal programs such as food assistance.

“I think everything is a risk with this administration. … We in the states are kind of left holding the bag yet again as the federal government tries to sort out what it wants to be when it grows up,” he told Stateline.

Nevada entered the shutdown with more than $1.2 billion in reserves. Last week, Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo’s office said in a statement that state funds would be adequate to cover “a short period of time with minimal disruption to services.”

But the governor’s office said a shutdown of more than 30 days would cause more significant challenges for the state.

Lombardo’s office did not respond to Stateline’s questions. But last week, it released a three-page document on the shutdown, saying it expected the federal government to reimburse states once the budget stalemate is resolved.

“As D.C. works through its issues, our administration will continue to support Nevadans in any way we can throughout this unnecessary federal government shutdown,” Lombardo said in the statement.

While mandatory programs such as Medicaid and Social Security continue to send funds to beneficiaries during the shutdown, funding for other safety net programs such as food assistance are more uncertain. The federal government told states there were enough funds for the food stamp program to cover October benefits, though the special food program for women, infants and children may run out of money sooner.

By furloughing workers and halting federal spending, the shutdown could cost the national economy $15 billion per week, President Donald Trump’s economic advisers estimated.

The White House says a prolonged shutdown will affect the economies of every state by reducing employment, federal benefits and consumer spending. White House estimates say this could cost Michigan $361 million per week in lost economic output, for example, while Florida could lose $911 million each week.

‘Fend for themselves’

Some federal services are shuttered during a shutdown: The Environmental Protection Agency has ceased many research, permitting and enforcement efforts, and official jobs data is no longer being released. Federal funds for other programs, including food assistance, are expected to last through the end of the month. But states can elect to spend their own funds on these programs, which were previously authorized by Congress and state legislatures.

Before the shutdown, states were stockpiling reserve funding. The National Association of State Budget Officers reported most state budgets this year maintained or increased rainy day funds. At the same time, state and local governments are borrowing record amounts: As much as $600 billion in municipal bonds is projected to be issued by the end of 2025.

“So states and localities are kind of getting the message they really need to fend for themselves much more than they ever had,” said William Glasgall, public finance adviser at the Volcker Alliance, a nonprofit that works to support public sector workers.

Since January, the Trump administration has stripped states and cities of billions of dollars that Congress approved for education, infrastructure and energy projects. Glasgall said that record leaves states with legitimate concerns about getting repaid for their shutdown-related expenses — a prospect that would likely spark even more lawsuits from Democratic-led states.

“They’ve already, before the shutdown, started rolling back federal funding, and I don’t see any reason why they would stop now,” he said. “The recissions that have been announced are pretty harsh, and it’s money we’re expecting and not getting.”

The last shutdown, which lasted five weeks during Trump’s first term, delayed billions in federal spending and reduced gross domestic product — the value of all goods and services produced — by $11 billion, the Congressional Budget Office estimated in 2019. Experts say states were repaid for costs they incurred providing federal services during that shutdown.

In Minnesota, State Budget Director Ahna Minge said staff have been studying previous shutdowns. But at a news conference with Democratic Gov. Tim Walz last week, she characterized this shutdown as “unpredictable.”

“The current federal administration may not follow the historic playbook,” she said.

Walz said farmers would be among the first hit as the federal Farm Service Agency has ceased operations in the middle of the state’s harvest season. Among other duties, that agency works on disaster assistance and processes loans during harvest to protect farmers against commodity price fluctuations.

Minge said Minnesota officials think programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program for Women, Infants and Children have enough existing federal funds to operate through October. But she said the state budget cannot backfill all the commitments made by federal programs.

“What we know is that the longer a shutdown lasts, the greater the impact to state programs and services,” she said.

Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont, a Democrat, has pledged to use state dollars to keep WIC afloat if needed, The Associated Press reported. And Colorado lawmakers set aside $7.5 million just before the shutdown to keep WIC running.

Already under strain

In Maryland, the shutdown is compounding the economic instability from Trump’s ongoing efforts to shrink the number of federal employees, agencies and spending.

With more than 160,000 federal employees, Maryland’s economy relies heavily on the federal workforce. The Trump administration has said it may deny back pay to hundreds of thousands of furloughed federal workers, despite a law he signed in 2019 guaranteeing such back pay.

Chief Deputy Comptroller Andrew Schaufele told lawmakers last week that a shutdown could cost the state $700,000 per day in lost tax revenue.

Democratic Gov. Wes Moore pledged to continue funding some federal programs, but said the state would not tap into its rainy day funds to do so.

“We’re going to continually evaluate how long we can go,” he said at a news conference.

As for getting repaid, Moore spokesperson David Turner told Stateline that the state had received no indication that the federal government would deviate from past practice, “but we are monitoring closely.”

This fiscal uncertainty hits states as they are already struggling to respond to the strain of federal agency layoffs and cuts in the major tax and spending law Trump signed this summer. The law slashed billions in social service funding and created costly new bureaucratic burdens for states, which administer Medicaid and food assistance programs.

“There’s no way, really at this point, to sort of assess with any level of confidence what’s going to happen when you also have these massive layoffs that were going on pre-shutdown,” said Lisa Parshall, a professor of political science at Daemen University in New York. “There’s just a real sense from states and localities — and I think rightly so — that that kind of reliability of the federal government is now in question.”

It may not be a question of whether states are reimbursed for their shutdown expenses, but which states are reimbursed, Parshall said. The Trump administration has publicly targeted funding of liberal-led states and cities over policy disagreements, raising the possibility it could do something similar with the shutdown.

“Whether it’s a good thing or a bad thing, you know, you could argue,” she said. “But it’s definitely a thing that seems to be adding to this level of uncertainty — this shutdown feels different.”

In California, officials just closed a nearly $12 billion shortfall when negotiating the budget that was approved in June. The budget deficit is expected to grow to more than $17 billion next year, said H.D. Palmer, spokesperson for the State of California Department of Finance, which advises the governor and state agencies on budget issues.

“There isn’t a long-term, open-ended line of credit available if this drags out,” he said of the federal government shutdown.

The depth of reserve funds available varies by federally funded program, he said. CalFresh, California’s name for its Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program, has enough funds to cover food stamp benefits for this month, but anything beyond that is uncertain.

“If the duration of this is in the matter of days, it will be an inconvenience, but should not pose a massive problem,” he said. “However, if it does drag out for an extended period of time, then clearly it’s going to be a problem.”

Stateline reporter Kevin Hardy can be reached at khardy@stateline.org.

On May 20, 2025, Farm Foundation brought together leaders from across the agriculture sector at our Innovation and Education Campus (IEC) in Libertyville, Illinois, for a critical conversation about the future of our food and agriculture system.

Kicking off the day were two U.S. Secretaries of Agriculture, one Democrat, one Republican, who set the tone for a nonpartisan dialogue grounded in collaboration. Together, farmers, agribusiness leaders, researchers, and policymakers explored how to strengthen the U.S. food and ag system beyond today’s challenges and into the future.

The Summit defined what resilience in food and agriculture truly means:

A resilient food and agriculture system has the ability to produce food, even in the midst of changes and shocks, that sustains the planet and all people through access to safe, affordable, nutritious, and culturally relevant food.

From this shared vision came three key areas for continued collaboration:

1. Creating a policy innovation sandbox to explore new approaches to food and agriculture policy at the local, state, national, and global levels.

2. Advancing rural communities that are vibrant, thriving, and connected to opportunity.

3. Evolving the agricultural extension network to better serve today’s diverse, technology-driven, and rapidly changing sector.

The Summit was not just a conversation; it was a starting point for action. The resulting paper, Toward a Resilient Food and Agriculture Future, authored by Farm Foundation’s Agricultural Economic Fellow Dr. Sunghun Lim, captures the Summit’s insights and lays out a framework for the work ahead.

“The challenges facing agriculture today are deeply interconnected. The Summit was not just about identifying problems, it was about building momentum for actionable solutions,” said Dr. Sunghun Lim.

Now, we invite you to join us in taking the next steps. As we’ve done for the past 90 years, Farm Foundation will continue to organize thought partners and use our think tank/do tank model to drive progress in these three focus areas, sparking ideas and putting them into practice to create real impact.

The Innovation and Education Campus is a gathering place for these vital conversations. A space where anyone in the sector can host meetings, events, and trainings that help shape the future of food and agriculture.

Download the Executive Summary
Read the Full Report
Learn more about hosting an event at the IEC
Watch the video highlighting scenes from the Summit

Join us as we continue this work. Together we can create a more resilient future for food and agriculture.

The post Shaping a Resilient Future for Food and Agriculture appeared first on Farm Foundation.

Farm Foundation is proud to announce the second cohort of students selected for the Careers in Ag and Food Exploration (CAFE) Student Workshop. This immersive program offers undergraduate students from 1890 land-grant institutions an exclusive opportunity to dive into the diverse and evolving world of agriculture and food systems. 

Held at North Carolina A&T State University, the CAFE Workshop equips students with professional development tools, career exploration experiences, and networking connections that extend well beyond the classroom. Over the course of the program, participants engage in hands-on sessions and thought-provoking conversations with leaders across the agri-food value chain—helping them better understand the range of impactful careers available in this vital sector. 

“We are thrilled to welcome this talented group of students to the CAFE Student Workshop,” said Jenna Wicks, program manager at Farm Foundation. “The food and agriculture sector offers a wide range of career opportunities, and we are committed to helping the next generation explore these possibilities.” 

The CAFE Student Workshop is made possible through support from the SAPLINGS (System Approach to Promote Learning and Innovation for the Next GenerationS) grant—an initiative led in collaboration with North Carolina A&T and funded by an $18.1 million award from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture. 

We are honored to recognize the 2025 CAFE cohort: 

• Randall Gary, South Carolina State University 

• Jeronee Hinton, University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff 

• Gary Jarvis, North Carolina A&T State University 

• William Johnson, Tuskegee University 

• Sahara McMillan, Virginia State University 

• Jerricah Robinson, University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff 

• Cameron Shellman, Fort Valley State University 

• Jayla Silver, Tennessee State University 

• Markayla Watts, Tuskegee University 

These students represent a promising future across a variety of industries—bringing curiosity, passion, and a desire to grow.  

To learn more about the CAFE Student Workshop, visit: farmfoundation.org/cafe-student-workshop 

The post Spotlight on the 2025 CAFE Cohort: Discovering Opportunities in Food and Ag  appeared first on Farm Foundation.

The post Sugar Creek Lutheran Church Solar Project: Powering the Future of Community Programs appeared first on RENEW Wisconsin.

The post The River Food Pantry: Renewable Energy that Powers Community Growth appeared first on RENEW Wisconsin.