Reading Time: 3 minutes

We’ve learned a bit about American society amid the rhetoric over President Donald Trump’s “big beautiful bill.” For example, unauthorized immigrants don’t get Medicaid, but millions of working-age adults have gone on it. We’ve also knocked down some false claims about the bill along the way.

As of July 3, the nearly 900-page measure, filled with tax breaks and spending cuts, had moved toward passage but was still being debated in Congress.

Wisconsin Watch fact briefs have cleared up misstatements about the bill itself and about programs it would cut, such as Medicaid and food stamps.

Note: Our fact briefs answer a factual question yes or no based on the facts available when the brief is published.

Here’s a look.

Would the ‘big beautiful bill’ provide the largest federal spending cut in US history?

No.

The largest-cut claim was made by Republican U.S. Rep. Scott Fitzgerald, who represents part of southeastern Wisconsin. His office cited a $1.7 trillion claim made by the Trump administration.

Even if the net cut were $1.7 trillion, it would be second to a 2011 law that decreased spending by $2 trillion and would be the third-largest cut as a percentage of gross domestic product, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

But when Fitzgerald made his statement, the bill’s net decreases were $1.2 trillion, after taking its spending increases into account, and $680 billion after additional interest payments on the debt.

Have millions of nondisabled, working-age adults been added to Medicaid?

Yes.

Millions of nondisabled working-age adults have enrolled in Medicaid since the Affordable Care Act expanded eligibility in 2014.

Medicaid is health insurance for low-income people.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that in 2024, average monthly Medicaid enrollment included 34 million nonelderly, nondisabled adults — 15 million made eligible by Obamacare.

Republican U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, who represents most of northern Wisconsin, complained about “able-bodied” adults being added, saying they are “draining” Medicaid.

The nonpartisan health policy organization KFF said 44% of the working-age adults on Medicaid, some of whom are temporarily disabled, worked full time and 20% part time, many for small companies, and aren’t eligible for health insurance.

Are unauthorized immigrants eligible for federal Medicaid coverage?

No.

Unauthorized immigrants are not eligible for traditional, federally funded Medicaid and have never been eligible.

Fourteen states, excluding Wisconsin, use state Medicaid funds to cover unauthorized immigrants. 

Trump’s bill proposed reducing federal Medicaid funds to those states.

Opponents of the bill, including Democratic U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan, who represents the Madison area, said Trump administration officials claimed that unauthorized immigrants receive traditional Medicaid.

Do half the residents in one rural Wisconsin county receive food stamps?

Yes.

In April, 2,004 residents of Menominee County in northeast Wisconsin received benefits from the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

That’s about 46% of the county’s 4,300 residents.

SNAP, formerly known as food stamps and called FoodShare in Wisconsin, provides food assistance for low-income people.

Menominee County’s rate was cited by U.S. Sen. Raphael Warnock, D-Ga., at the Wisconsin Democratic Party convention. He commented on the bill’s provision to remove an estimated 3.2 million people from SNAP, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

Is Donald Trump’s megabill projected to add more than $2 trillion to the national debt?

Yes.

Nonpartisan analysts estimate that the “big beautiful bill” would add at least $2 trillion to the national debt over 10 years.

The debt, which is the accumulation of annual spending that exceeds revenues, is $36 trillion.

U.S. Rep. Gwen Moore, D-Milwaukee, and U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., claimed the bill would add trillions.

Among other things, the bill would make 2017 individual income tax cuts permanent, add work requirements for Medicaid and food assistance, and add funding for defense and more deportations.

After we published this brief, the Senate passed a version of the bill that would increase the debt by $3.3 trillion.

Would ‘the vast majority’ of Americans get a 65% tax increase if the GOP megabill doesn’t become law?

No.

Most Americans would not face a tax increase near 65% if Trump’s 2017 tax cuts are not extended under the bill.

The tax cuts are set to expire Dec. 31. 

The Tax Foundation estimates that if the cuts expire, 62% of taxpayers would see a tax increase in 2026. The average taxpayer’s increase would be 19.4% ($2,955).

GOP U.S. Rep. Derrick Van Orden, who represents western Wisconsin, made the 65% claim. 

Do you have questions about this bill and how it affects Wisconsin? Submit them here, through our Ask Wisconsin Watch project.

Here are 6 claims about Donald Trump’s big bill — and the facts is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Reading Time: < 1 minute

In April, 2,004 residents of Menominee County in northeast Wisconsin received benefits from the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

That’s about 46% of the county’s 4,300 residents.

SNAP, formerly known as food stamps and called FoodShare in Wisconsin, provides food assistance for low-income people.

Other reports show similar rates.

As of March 2024, 51% of residents in the Menominee tribal nation received SNAP, according to the nonpartisan Wisconsin Policy Forum. 

The latest U.S. Census data, for 2022, showed the rate for Menominee County was 49%.

American Indians constitute nearly 80% of the county’s population.

Menominee County’s rate was cited June 14 by U.S. Sen. Raphael Warnock, D-Ga., at the Wisconsin Democratic Party convention. He commented on President Donald Trump’s tax cut bill pending in Congress. It would remove an estimated 3.2 million people from SNAP, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

SNAP cost $100 billion in 2024, 1.5% of the federal budget.

This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.

Sources

• Wisconsin Department of Health Services: State Food Stamp/Foodshare Benefits and Participation Data
• U.S. Department of Agriculture: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
• Wisconsin Department of Health Services: FoodShare: Your Income Could Make You Eligible
• Wisconsin Policy Forum: FoodShare Use Remains High Post Pandemic
• U.S. Census Bureau: Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates — Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
• U.S. Census Bureau: Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates — Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Menominee County
• Wisconsin Democratic Party: WisDems 2025 Convention – Day 1
• Congressional Budget Office: Letter
• U.S. Department of Agriculture: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Participation and Costs
• The Journalist's Resource: As Congress considers cuts to SNAP, we address 8 questions about this US federal nutrition program

Do half the residents in one rural Wisconsin county receive food stamps? is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

A “SNAP welcomed here” sign is seen at the entrance to a Big Lots store in Portland, Oregon. (Getty Images)

The U.S. House Agriculture Committee approved, 29-25, Wednesday evening its portion of Republicans’ major legislative package that includes a provision that would shift to states some of the responsibility to pay for a major nutrition assistance program.

The bill would require states, for the first time, to cover part of the cost of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, benefits that provide $100 billion per year to help 42 million Americans afford groceries. The measure would also shift more of the administrative cost to states and increase work requirements for recipients.

Republicans are planning to combine the measure with legislation from 10 other committees in a budget reconciliation package that allows the Senate to avoid its usual 60-vote threshold.

House Agriculture Chairman Glenn “GT” Thompson said the panel’s bill and its estimated $290 billion deficit savings over a 10-year budget window were necessary for the larger legislative package to extend tax cuts and increase border security and defense spending.

 The package would “prevent the largest tax increase in American history on our families, farmers and small businesses, and (would) deliver critical funding necessary for the Trump administration to continue their work keeping Americans safe,” the Pennsylvania Republican said in an opening statement.

“Our reconciliation instructions provide the opportunity to restore integrity to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, to make sure that this essential program works for the most vulnerable and functions as Congress has intended.”

Republicans on the panel said throughout a marathon committee meeting, which started Tuesday night and wrapped up more than 26 hours later following an overnight break, that the added work requirements and accountability measures for state governments were overdue reforms.

The panel’s GOP majority approved the bill over unified opposition from Democrats, who argued that the measure would unfairly cut benefits to needy families to pay for tax cuts for high earners, undermine the panel’s bipartisan tradition of fusing crop subsidies with nutrition assistance and overburden state governments that can’t afford to take on the additional cost.

Ranking Democrat Angie Craig of Minnesota called the measure “the largest rollback of an anti-hunger program in our nation’s history” which would be felt deeply across a broad swath of recipients.

“We will see children going to bed without dinner, more seniors skipping meals to afford their medicine, more parents sacrificing their own nutrition, so their kids can eat,” Craig said. “Every single one of us knows (the cuts) will take food away from families at a time when working folks are struggling with higher costs.”

State contributions

The bill would make states pay for up to 25% of SNAP benefits, which are currently entirely covered by the federal government, starting in 2028.

States would be required to pay at least 5%, with the rate rising with a state’s payment error rate. The highest state cost-share would be triggered by a state reaching a 10% or higher error rate.

Even at the lowest state cost-share, the provision would add $4.7 billion overall to annual state obligations, according to an analysis published Wednesday by the center-left think tank Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.

But only seven states would have qualified for the lowest cost-share in fiscal 2023, the most recent year for which data is available. The national error rate was 11.7% and more than two dozen states and territories had error rates higher than 10%.

That means in practice the costs to states would be much higher. The three most populous states — California, Texas and Florida — alone would have combined to owe more than $5.7 billion under their 2023 error rates and 2024 benefit amounts.

Republican members said the requirement would incentivize states to better manage their programs.

“Unlike every other state-administered entitlement program, SNAP benefit is 100% funded by the federal government, resulting in minimal incentives for states to control costs, enhance efficiencies and improve outcomes for recipients,” Thompson said.

Impact on state budgets

Democrats said states could ill afford to take on additional costs, meaning the bill would result in cuts to the program or other critical services.

“The massive unfunded mandate this bill forces on states just passes the buck onto state legislatures, forcing them to slash local programs and services, cut benefits, kick vulnerable people off SNAP or raise taxes,” Craig said. “We already know states can’t afford it.”

The change would force difficult decisions for states, several Democrats said.

In Ohio, the state would be on the hook for an additional $534 million annually, Democrat Shontel Brown said.

“That’s not to expand benefits or improve outcomes, that’s just to maintain the status quo.” she said. “To cover the costs, Ohio, along with every other state, is going to have to make brutal tradeoffs. It’s going to mean cutting K-12 education funding, scaling back opioid and mental health treatment programs, reducing Medicaid coverage or putting off critical infrastructure repairs.”

Republicans countered that the provision would bring much needed accountability to state administrators, which would make the program fairer overall.

Alaska had an error rate of nearly 60% in fiscal 2023. Without mentioning that state, Derrick Van Orden, a Republican whose home state of Wisconsin was among the few states with error rates under 6%, said the costs associated with such numerous errors shouldn’t be covered by states with lower rates.

“Overpayments, waste, fraud and abuse have plagued programs like SNAP,” he said. “There is a state that has a 59.59% overpayment rate and my Wisconsinites are not going to pick up that slack.”

States’ error rates include fraud, but it makes up a small share of a category that also includes inadvertent underpayments and overpayments, Michigan Democrat Kristen McDonald Rivet said.

SNAP has a fraud rate of less than 1% and work requirements already exist, McDonald Rivet said. Republicans’ efforts to target fraud and add work requirements wouldn’t reach the cost savings they sought, she said.

“Are there error rates in the states? Sure,” she said. “Should we address it? Absolutely. But the idea that we are going to find $300 billion of cuts — $300 billion of cuts — on that small percentage of people who are not working that are already required to or error rates in the states is just a flat-out lie. What we are really doing is cutting food for people.”

Administrative costs

The bill would also increase states’ share of the cost of administering the food assistance program.

Under current law, states and the federal government evenly split the cost of administering the program. The bill would have states shoulder 75% of administrative costs.

Democrats, including the ranking member of the panel’s Nutrition, Foreign Agriculture, and Horticulture Subcommittee, complained that would compound the problems created by the new cost structure for SNAP benefits.

“States will be forced to budget more for SNAP benefits with less for administrators,” Rep. Jahana Hayes of Connecticut said. “With fewer administrative staff, it is inevitable that errors will increase.”

Work requirements

Another section of the bill would expand the number of participants subject to work requirements to receive SNAP benefits.

The proposal would raise from 54 to 64 the age at which a person no longer has to meet work requirements. It would also lower from 18 to 7 the age at which caring for a child exempts a person from work requirements.

Democrats raised and introduced several amendments meant to address the provision, but were outvoted each time.

Kansas Republican Tracey Mann said the changes were not only about improving SNAP efficiency, but would make the program’s rules fairer for those it was meant to serve.

“It is wrong to jeopardize the benefits of the single mom taking care of kids too young to be in school or the disabled or elderly in order to subsidize someone who is perfectly capable of making an honest income but isn’t willing to join the workforce,” Mann said.

“These changes will ensure that individuals are served by the program as it was intended — not as a couch that you can sit on as long as you want, but as a true safety net that gets you back on the ladder of opportunity and back into a job.”

Environmental and community advocates in Massachusetts argue that making too much room for biofuels in a pending state plan to decarbonize heating systems would slow the transition from fossil fuels and cause more pollution than a plan that prioritizes electric heat pumps.

As the state works on the creation of a Clean Heat Standard, a report released last month by Greater Boston Physicians for Social Responsibility raises questions about the effects using biodiesel in fuel-oil heating systems could have on air quality and public health, saying there is not enough information available about the pollutants released in the process. 

Advocates say there is no such uncertainty about electric heat pumps, which create no direct emissions and should therefore be heavily favored in the new state policy. 

“We absolutely think the thumb should be on the scale of electrification,” said Larry Chretien, executive director of the Green Energy Consumers Alliance. “If they give credit to biofuels, it ought to be conditional.”

Oil heating is much more prevalent in the Northeast than in the rest of the country. In Massachusetts, 22% of households are heated with oil, as compared to less than 5% nationwide. Moving homes and businesses off oil heat, therefore, is an important element of the state’s plan to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, which sets a target of reducing emissions from heating by 93% from 1990 levels in that timeframe. 

The process of developing a Clean Heat Standard began when then-Gov. Charlie Baker convened the Commission on Clean Heat in 2021. In 2022, the board recommended the creation of the standard, which was also included in the state’s Clean Energy and Climate Plan for 2050, released later that year. A stakeholder process began in 2023, and in the fall of that year the state released a draft framework for the standard that included the expectation of issuing credits for some biofuel use. 

Open questions about public health

The program is expected to require gas utilities and importers of heating oil and propane to provide an increasing proportion of clean heating services like home heat pumps, networked geothermal, and other options, or buy credits from other parties that have implemented these solutions. 

Whether the other options that qualify as clean heat will include biofuels — fuels derived from renewable, organic sources — has been a matter of contention since the idea for the system was first raised.

Climate advocates have tended to oppose the inclusion of much, if any, biofuel in the standard. Though biodiesel creates lower lifetime greenhouse gas emissions than its conventional counterpart, the recent Greater Boston Physicians for Social Responsibility report contends that there are many unanswered questions about how burning biodiesel impacts public health. 

“Given the sheer amount of doubt, there’s more research that should clearly be done before these fuels are subsidized by the state government,” said report author Carrie Katan, who also works as a Massachusetts policy advocate for the Green Energy Consumers Alliance, but compiled the report as an independent contractor for the physicians group. 

The physicians’ report notes a study by Trinity Consulting Group that found significant health benefits to switching from fossil diesel to biodiesel for building heating. The physicians’ report, however, questions the methodology used in that study, claiming it cherrypicks data and fails to cite sources. 

Katan’s report also notes that the health impacts of biofuels can vary widely depending on the organic matter used to create them, and points out that most of the research on burning biofuels is focused on the transportation sector. 

Climate advocates also argue that embracing biofuels in a Clean Heat Standard would unnecessarily prolong the transition to electric heat pumps while encouraging the continued burning of fossil heating oil. Typically, a heating oil customer using biodiesel receives a blend that is no more than 20% biofuel. Providing credit for that fraction of biofuel would therefore improve the economics of the entire heating oil system, contrary to the overall emissions reduction goals of the policy, Chretien said.

“We’re trying to create a system that is rewarding steps towards greenhouse gas reduction,” he said. 

Making the case for biofuel

Advocates of biofuels, however, say they are confident that existing science makes a solid case for the health and environmental benefits of biodiesel. 

“There’s a decades-long body of work showing the overall benefits to public health of biofuels, specifically biodiesel,” said Floyd Vergara, a consultant for Clean Fuels Alliance America, a national trade association representing the biodiesel, renewable diesel and sustainable aviation fuel industries.

Vergara, who was involved in the Trinity Consulting study, called out in the physicians’ report, also defended the methodologies and sourcing of that paper. 

Further, he said, though biodiesel is typically limited to 20% in current blends, it is quite possible to run a heating system entirely on biofuel, with just a few tweaks to the equipment. These conversions could yield immediate reductions in emissions, he said, rather than waiting for the slower process of replacing thousands of heating oil systems with electric heat pumps.

The difference could be particularly acute in low-income or other traditionally disadvantaged neighborhoods, where many residents can not afford to make the switch to heat pumps, he said. 

“You’re getting those benefits immediately, and you’re getting them while the states are pursuing zero-emissions technologies,” he said.

State environmental regulators expect to release a full draft of the clean heat standard for public comment sometime this winter.

Physicians group warns against propping up biodiesel as part of Massachusetts’ clean heat transition  is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.