Maryland Democratic Gov. Wes Moore spent a few minutes sorting donated food before signing an executive order in late October declaring a state of emergency to allow for distribution of food aid. As the federal government reopens, questions remain about how states will be reimbursed for the costs they incurred. (Photo by Bryan P. Sears/Maryland Matters)

Though Congress ended the record-setting federal government shutdown, many questions remain for states that were already wading through seismic federal changes.

One major uncertainty: whether and how states will be reimbursed for the costs they incurred, as they have been in previous shutdowns. And for the longer term, the shutdown offered a glimpse into the funding challenges facing states. They’ll have to rely more on their own money and staff to keep federal programs going even at a time when many face their own budget problems.

That’s a top concern for the federal food stamp program, known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. Amid conflicting federal guidance during the shutdown, states reacted in different ways: Some issued partial benefit payments, others sent aid to food banks to keep people from going hungry.

But even after the government reopening restores SNAP aid, other challenges loom. The major tax and spending law enacted this summer tied SNAP funding to state error rates, which measure the accuracy of benefit payments. Advocates fear the shutdown will increase error rates because of conflicting federal guidance.

Air travel, SNAP benefits, back pay at issue as federal government slowly reopens

“States are really worried,” said Crystal FitzSimons, president of the Food Research & Action Center, a nonprofit working to address poverty-related hunger.

And states have been rushing to inform rural residents, veterans and older adults that they will soon be forced to meet work requirements or lose SNAP benefits. It’s just the first in a wave of cutbacks to the nation’s largest food assistance program required under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that President Donald Trump signed in July.

FitzSimons said the shutdown highlighted the importance of SNAP and how “untenable” many of the upcoming changes will prove for states. For now, states are working to get benefits to people immediately, and then will focus more on questions of reimbursement and ongoing changes to SNAP.

“The hope is that states will be able to move quickly and then turn their attention to all the changes,” she said.

While public attention has centered on the shutdown chaos in recent weeks, more fundamental changes are occurring outside the spotlight, said Eric Schnurer, founder and president of Public Works, a consulting firm specializing in government performance and efficiency.

“The ground is shifting under their [states’] feet even as this goes on,” he said. “Even if the Trump administration and his policies were to pass on in another three years, there are serious structural changes in the relationship between state and federal government.”

Since taking office, the Trump administration has stripped states and cities of billions of dollars that Congress approved for education, infrastructure and energy projects. And the president’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act mandates deep cuts to social service programs, including Medicaid and food stamps.

Under the law, states will be required to pay a greater share of administering SNAP in the coming years. That requirement, along with eligibility changes, could result in millions of Americans losing benefits.

“I think the public in general got a taste of what that might look like over the past month,” Schnurer said, referencing the shutdown’s first-ever disruption to SNAP benefits.

State-federal strain

The legislation to reopen the government approved by Congress and signed by the president this week says that states shall be reimbursed for expenses “that would have been paid” by the federal government during the shutdown.

“So that sounds promising for states,” said Marcia Howard, executive director of Federal Funds Information for States, which analyzes how federal policymaking impacts states.

But it’s unclear how that language will be interpreted. For example, states that sent money to food banks for emergency food assistance are less likely to be made whole compared with states that sent funds through existing federal programs like SNAP, she said.

California dedicated $80 million in state funds and deployed the National Guard to food banks across the state. But Virginia launched a temporary state-level version of the federal food stamp program.

Previous administrations have been more flexible with federal funds, making it easier for states to receive funding or reimbursement, Howard said.

“This administration is really more holding states’ feet to the fire perhaps than other administrations have. So I think they’ll be less permissive in who and how they reimburse,” she said.

It could take weeks or months before states know the full fallout from the shutdown, especially with food assistance.

“[States] did such different things, and I think there’s going to be a fair bit of back-and-forth: should this be covered? Should this not be covered?” Howard said.

The shutdown and its aftermath underscore the ongoing strain between state and federal governments, said Lisa Parshall, a professor of political science at Daemen University in New York.

Federal uncertainty can cause state leaders to be more cautious about their own budgets — similar to how an economic downturn can decrease consumer spending, she said.

“There’s a delay of services, there’s a diminishment of capacity and partnership, and those things might be harder to quantify when you’re talking about what is the cost of the shutdown,” she said. “But I think those are real costs.”

And the end of the shutdown does not extinguish those tensions.

“In some ways, even though the shutdown is over, things are not going to go back to ‘normal,’” she said.

More changes coming

Aside from spending cuts and new administrative costs, Trump’s July law made major tax code changes poised to cost many states, said William Glasgall, public finance adviser at the Volcker Alliance, a nonprofit that supports public sector workers.

Most states use the federal tax code as a basis for their own income tax structures, so changes at the federal level can trickle down to state tax systems or states can choose a different structure to avoid those changes.

Last month, a Massachusetts budget official said federal tax changes would cost the state $650 million in revenue this budget year.

So even with the government back open, states have to plan for some level of unpredictability, Glasgall said. And the future of entire agencies like the Department of Education remain up in the air, he noted.

“So there’s still a lot of uncertainty, even with this bill,” he said.

On Wednesday, state budget analysts briefed Maryland lawmakers on the $1.4 billion budget gap they could face as they head into the 2026 legislative session.

That figure does not include the fallout from the federal government shutdown, which may not be known for months, according to Maryland Matters.

In late October, Democratic Gov. Wes Moore declared an emergency and directed $10 million in state funds toward food banks and pantries. Earlier this month, he announced $62 million in state funds would be deployed directly to SNAP recipients.

Rhyan Lake, a Moore spokesperson, told Stateline that Maryland expects the federal government to reimburse the state for its SNAP expenditures during the shutdown.

But lawmakers are still gearing up for a hit from major federal changes.

In addition to cuts from Trump’s domestic tax and spending law, Maryland has lost about 15,000 federal jobs, budget officials said. But many federal workers who took buyouts were paid through September. And the shutdown caused a pause in federal employment data, potentially concealing the true impact.

State Sen. James Rosapepe, Democratic chair of the joint Spending Affordability Committee, said he’s worried the state has only seen the beginning of its federally induced fiscal challenges. He also noted that this week’s shutdown-ending legislation only assures the government remains open through January, meaning another shutdown could be just a couple months away.

“We’re less than a year into the administration, and the effects of things they’ve already done don’t seem to have flowed through yet to the data that we have, which leads me to believe that the worst is yet to come,” he said.

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

Patients have their blood pressure checked and other vitals taken at an intake triage at a Remote Area Medical mobile dental and medical clinic on Oct. 07, 2023 in Grundy, Virginia. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — All 50 states have applied for the $50 billion Rural Health Transformation Program in Republicans’ “big, beautiful” law, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services said Thursday.

States had from Sept. 15 through Wednesday to apply for the program, which was authorized under the mega tax and spending cut package passed by Republicans and signed into law by President Donald Trump. The fund is intended to offset the budget impacts on rural areas due to sweeping Medicaid cuts. 

However, the temporary fund could only offset a little more than one-third of the package’s estimated $137 billion cut to federal Medicaid spending in rural areas over the next decade, according to the nonpartisan health research organization KFF.

Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Dr. Mehmet Oz said the program “moves us from a system that has too often failed rural America to one built on dignity, prevention, and sustainability” in a Thursday statement alongside the announcement. 

Oz said “every state with an approved application will receive funding so it can design what works best for its communities — and CMS will be there providing support every step of the way.”

Each state was asked to “design a plan for transforming its rural health care system” and outline in proposals how they “intend to expand access, enhance quality, and improve outcomes for patients through sustainable, state-driven innovation.” 

The program allocates $25 billion equally to approved states between fiscal years 2026 and 2030. CMS said states meeting the baseline criteria will then “undergo a rigorous, data-driven merit review” for the remaining half of the funds. 

In September, when announcing the application opening, CMS said the remaining half of funds would be administered to approved states based on “individual state metrics and applications that reflect the greatest potential for and scale of impact on the health of rural communities.” 

CMS said approved awardees will be notified by Dec. 31. 

A sign in a convenience store along Barlowe Road in Hyattsville, Maryland, on Oct. 28, 2025, advertises that it accepts SNAP benefits. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)

This report has been updated.

A federal judge in Rhode Island ordered the Trump administration Thursday to pay roughly $9 billion for a full month of nutrition assistance benefits by the next day.

Chief Judge John J. McConnell Jr., who was appointed by Democratic former President Barack Obama, said the administration blew its chance to choose to pay only partial benefits for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, when it failed to release funds by a Wednesday deadline.

He said a social media post by President Donald Trump showed the president sought to use hunger for political leverage during the government shutdown, which stretched into day 37 on Thursday.

Earlier, in a Friday oral order that he expanded in a Saturday written order, McConnell had said the government must either pay full benefits by Monday or partial benefits from a contingency fund by Wednesday. 

The government did neither, he said Thursday.

The administration had argued it was impossible to pay the benefits, which go to 42 million Americans, within a few days, saying that the USDA had never calculated partial benefits and that coordinating new payments for SNAP, a federally funded program administered by the states, was difficult. 

The administration quickly appealed the ruling to the 1st Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.

“Today is a major victory for 42 million people in America. The court could not be more clear – the Trump-Vance administration must stop playing politics with people’s lives by delaying SNAP payments they are obligated to issue,” said Skye Perryman, President and CEO of Democracy Forward, co-counsel for the coalition challenging the administration.

‘USDA cannot now cry’

But McConnell said the department created the problem, in part by failing to prepare for it far earlier. USDA was obligated to spend from a contingency fund to ensure SNAP benefits flowed into November uninterrupted, he said. 

“USDA did not do so,” he said. “Even when Nov. 1 came, USDA refused to use the congressionally mandated contingency funds. USDA cannot now cry that it cannot get timely payments to beneficiaries for weeks or months because states are not prepared to make partial payments.

“USDA arbitrarily and capriciously created this problem by ignoring the congressionally mandated contingency funds and failing to timely notify the states.”

McConnell also pointed to Trump’s post on Truth Social on Tuesday that indicated he would not authorize payments consistent with the judge’s order until Democrats agreed to his terms to end the government shutdown.

“The day before the compliance was ordered, the president stated his intent to defy the court order when he said, ‘SNAP payments will be given only when the government opens,’” McConnell said Thursday.

Child nutrition funding suggested

The USDA had said it would pay only partial November benefits from a contingency fund holding about $4.5 billion, rather than tap into other money at its disposal, including a $23 billion fund for child nutrition programs.

The coalition of cities and nonprofit organizations that sued to force the administration to pay SNAP benefits for November has argued the court should force USDA to pay full benefits for November. 

In addition to the missed Wednesday deadline, the move violated a fundamental administrative law requiring federal agencies not to make arbitrary and capricious decisions, Kristin Bateman of the Democracy Forward Foundation, which is representing the groups, said Thursday.

The child nutrition program would not need its billions of dollars until June, she said, meaning that transferring funds for SNAP would only actually hurt the child nutrition program if the shutdown persists until then.

“A decision on such a highly unlikely set of events is not reasoned decision-making,” Bateman said. “It’s particularly unreasonable because the defendants have not explained why they would choose to let 42 million Americans, including 16 million children, go hungry now in order to guard against the extreme outside chance that come June, there won’t be enough money to fund child nutrition programs.”

McConnell agreed that invoking the child nutrition fund was “entirely pretextual,” which was demonstrated in part by Trump’s post and other statements by administration officials.

“The defendants’ stated desire to conserve funding for the child nutrition programs is entirely pretextual, given the numerous statements made in recent weeks by the president and his administration officials who admit to withholding full SNAP benefits for political reasons,” he said.

McConnell also noted that the case should be resolved as soon as possible to help provide food to hungry people or “needless suffering will occur.”

‘A state problem’

Tyler Becker, who argued on behalf of the USDA, said the department had done its part by making available to states a table showing how they should allocate partial November benefits for households of differing circumstances.

SNAP is a complex program, requiring coordination between the federal government and all 50 states, each of which has a different system for distributing benefits.

“The government did make the payments, is making the payments to the states,” he said. “That’s all the government does in the SNAP program.”

He added that the government had shown earlier in the case some of the administrative difficulties of paying partial benefits.

In a separate case in Massachusetts federal court, some states said they could process the benefits immediately, while others cannot.

“This is a state problem,” he said.

But McConnell cut him off shortly after, saying the federal government was responsible for ensuring people got their SNAP benefits.

“The problem that the government identified needed to be resolved one way or the other by Wednesday,” he said. “And if it wasn’t resolved by Wednesday, then you had to make the full payments, because that’s the only way we could get money to people immediately and alleviate the irreparable harm, whether you could or couldn’t do anything about that.”

In a Sept. 30 contingency plan about how to proceed during a government shutdown, the USDA itself said it would pay for continuing benefits through the contingency fund, which at the time held $6 billion. The administration later reversed that plan and said it could not tap the contingency fund.

In the Massachusetts case, which was brought by 25 Democratic states and the District of Columbia, the states argued Thursday that confusion stemming from a miscalculation the USDA made in determining November partial benefits was a reason to force the administration to pay for a full month.

USDA corrects miscalculation

The hearing followed a late Wednesday night filing from the USDA correcting an error it made in calculating the amounts beneficiaries would receive under its plan for partial payments. 

The department said it will reduce the largest monthly food assistance payments by about 35% in November, down from a 50% cut the department initially estimated.

USDA miscalculated how to adjust benefit payments for SNAP to account for a lack of full funding during the government shutdown, a department official said in a filing to the U.S. District Court for Rhode Island. 

The formula the government initially used and sent to states Tuesday would have resulted in about a 50% cut to the maximum monthly benefits, and left some households without benefits. 

SNAP pays benefits on a sliding scale depending on the size of a household, the household’s income and other expenses such as housing. By cutting the maximum benefit by one-half, the department would have spent about $3 billion from a SNAP contingency fund instead of the full $4.65 billion in the fund, which is what the court ordered it to spend.

The mixup created confusion for state administrators, the states in the Massachusetts litigation said.

“The fact they have been asked to suddenly shift on a dime yet again as a result of these entirely new tables, causing further chaos and delay, underscores that USDA’s approach here is untenable and unlawful,” the states wrote in a Thursday brief.

The error was first reported to McConnell by the coalition of cities and nonprofit organizations that sued to force the government to pay SNAP benefits this month. 

Think tank discovers discrepancy 

An analysis submitted by Sharon Parrott, a former White House budget officer who now leads the left-leaning think tank Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, showed that the table the department submitted to the court and sent to states on Tuesday would fall short of the court’s order to spend the entire contingency fund.

The groups said the department’s error was another reason the court should compel the government to transfer funds to pay out full benefits for November.

“Defendants’ approach means that only around $3 billion—out of the $4.65 billion Defendants have said is available—will be spent on SNAP benefits in November, leaving more than $1.5 billion in contingency funds unspent,” they wrote in a Wednesday brief. “Defendants opted for partial (and delayed) SNAP payments, but even then, did not manage to do that correctly.”

The department said in its filing later Wednesday that it independently discovered its miscalculation and worked to fix it before Parrott’s declaration hit the court docket.

“Defendants realized this error and worked to issue new guidance and tables as soon as it was discovered, not in response to Plaintiffs’ notice filed earlier this evening,” USDA’s brief said.

Advocates who urged the Oregon legislature to increase child care funding in January 2024 hung onesies and other children’s clothes on a tent outside the Capitol in Salem. Officials in Oregon and other states are relying on their own funds to keep Head Start programs afloat during the federal government shutdown. (Photo by Julia Shumway/Oregon Capital Chronicle)

With some early childhood education centers already closing their doors because of the federal government shutdown, local leaders are scrambling to find money to keep Head Start programs available to some of the country’s most vulnerable children.

Head Start programs, which serve more than 700,000 low-income children across the country, are almost entirely federally funded. In addition to free preschool, centers provide health screenings, parent resources and meals for children up to 5 years old. But the record-long government shutdown has forced child care centers across the country to close as funding is exhausted.

The closures are creating stark choices for some of the most vulnerable families in society. Migrant farmworkers, for example, who are more likely to be without health insurance and tend not to have any vacation time, are faced with the prospect of missing work, and a paycheck, to care for their children. A network of Head Start programs for migrant farmworkers’ children that operates in states across the South closed its sites on Friday.

To keep Head Start programs operating in her state, Massachusetts Democratic Gov. Maura Healey announced plans to advance $20 million in additional funding for the program. Those grant funds were previously approved to improve and expand the Massachusetts program, which gets about 80% of its funding from the federal government.

In a statement last week, Healey said the state was doing everything it could to support those programs, “but we don’t have the resources to make up for what the federal government owes.”

In Atlanta, private funders made an $8 million loan to keep Georgia’s largest Head Start providers afloat for the coming weeks.

Frank Fernandez, the president and CEO of Community Foundation for Greater Atlanta, told CBS News that the measure was only a temporary solution: “Our elected officials must take action to end this shutdown and ensure the long-term sustainability of this critical program,” Fernandez said.

In Washington state, some school systems that operate Head Start programs are using their own funds to keep kids in classrooms, the Seattle Times reported. Still, other operations are cutting back staff and services to make do.

In neighboring Oregon, state officials are working out details of a 60-day deal to use existing funds to keep Head Start going, the Oregon Capital Chronicle reported. State officials said Head Start providers must have experienced a delay in federal funds and the state assistance will not exceed the total amount of money awarded to a program by Oregon annually.

“It’s important to note that this is not a loan to Head Start programs and is not ‘backfilling,’” Kate Gonsalves, a spokesperson for the state’s early learning department said in a statement. “These are dual-funded programs so the state dollars are not replacing federal funds but can be drawn down earlier in the cycle.”

Some sites already shuttered

Head Start sites in 18 states have already closed their doors, according to the First Five Years Fund, a nonprofit advocating for quality child care and early childhood education.

The National Head Start Association, a nonprofit representing Head Start programs, said full or partial closures have affected 8,000 children. Nationwide, programs serving 65,000 children hadn’t received their federal funds as of Saturday, according to the group.

In Ohio, seven Head Start programs have exhausted their federal funds. Two have already closed, affecting 600 children and 150 employees. In the coming weeks, the Ohio Head Start Association says the other five will be forced to close their doors, affecting nearly 3,700 Ohio kids.

“Every day the shutdown continues, Ohio children and families are paying the price,” Julie Stone, Executive Director of the association said in a statement. “Head Start isn’t a political issue — it’s a lifeline for working families.”

Farmworkers’ children

Agricultural farmworkers, many of whom travel for seasonal work, have been hit particularly hard.

East Coast Migrant Head Start Project, which runs 43 Head Start centers in multiple states, suspended services on Friday. Around 1,200 children of agricultural farmworkers are without services now, but the number of children served fluctuates by season. The network is funded to serve 3,000 children of farmworkers across Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Virginia, and partners with other groups in a few other states.

In Florida, that means more than 800 children of agricultural workers are going without care due to the lapse in federal funding, said John Menditto, chief legal officer of East Coast Migrant Head Start Project. The group has also had to furlough its staff.

About 60% of farmworkers are American citizens or are in the country legally. Head Start is open to all children, regardless of their parents’ immigration status.

In rural North Florida, roughly 80 children have been without early education, language and disability therapies, said Leannys Mendoza Gutierrez, the campus director for the migrant Head Start program in rural Jennings, Florida, which cares for babies 6 weeks old to kids up to 5 years old.

“[Farmworkers] are putting food on our tables, for all of us,” she said. “However, they are not so far receiving services due to this situation that we don’t know when it’s going to end.”

Migrant farmworker families in Gutierrez’s program work in North Florida and South Georgia on watermelon, cucumber, cabbage, pepper, tomato, strawberry and pine straw farms.

Many parents have been forced to skip work and lose pay because they have been unable to find child care alternatives, Gutierrez said. She added that her program steps in to cover pediatrician bills for families that don’t have health insurance. The shutdown has prevented her program from offering such assistance, too, she said.

Many farmworkers don’t have health insurance and already struggle with poverty, making staying home from work difficult. Many also receive food aid through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which has also been affected by the shutdown.

“The shutdown just accentuates everything,” said Amy Liebman of the Migrant Clinicians Network, which works with clinics across the nation that serve migrant workers and their families. “Everyone’s concerned, they’re worried about the families they serve.”

Two other programs, one serving kids in the capital area of Tallahassee and another, Redlands Christian Migrant Association, which serves about 1,700 kids of agricultural workers in Florida, have also suspended services, according to the National Head Start Association.

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

A volunteer stocks produce at the Independence Food Basket, a food pantry operated by the Community Access Center in Independence, Kan. Like other food pantries across the country, the organization has been providing food assistance to more families even before a disruption to the federal food stamp program. (Photo by Kevin Hardy/Stateline)

INDEPENDENCE, Kan. — Just a few years ago, the Community Access Center’s food pantry here served up to 250 families per month. But that figure has skyrocketed as the price of groceries has pinched more and more families.

Now, the small food pantry serves about 450 families a month in this community of about 8,500 people. Serving that growing number has become increasingly difficult with the high cost of food, cuts in federal aid — and an unprecedented disruption in the nation’s largest food assistance program looming.

Chris Mitchell, who leads the nonprofit that operates the Independence Food Basket and provides other services, said the amount the organization spends on food to supplement donated items increased from $1,700 per month in 2018 to $4,000 per month now.

“And that’s getting it from the food bank without taxes,” he said.

Like other providers across the country, the Independence Food Basket is bracing for a spike in demand when an estimated 42 million people are expected to lose access to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, commonly known as SNAP. Monthly benefits will not be provided beginning Saturday because of the ongoing federal government shutdown.

The unparalleled stress of a SNAP disruption on food pantries and the food banks that collect, warehouse and distribute food comes at a time when they were already stretched thin. High grocery prices have pushed more Americans to look to food banks for help. But organizations providing food relief have lost more than $1 billion in federal aid and are bracing for the impacts of legislation that will permanently limit the reach of SNAP.

Food banks now are asking local governments and donors to step in as they prepare for long lines. Many operations have increased orders ahead of the expected SNAP chaos, though some food pantries say they may have to ration food if supplies dwindle too quickly.

“You’d have to be living under a rock somewhere to not know that the prices of groceries went up and stayed up,” Mitchell said. “Now, you’re going to take away the means that people in poverty can afford food.”

The rising price of food has driven up not just visits to pantries, but also costs for the charitable food system in recent years.

Social service providers also are bracing for the impact of permanent changes to food stamps and other social services enacted in President Donald Trump’s major tax and spending law signed in July. The first in a wave of cutbacks to SNAP ended exemptions from work requirements for older adults, homeless people, veterans and some rural residents, likely pushing millions out of the food stamp program.

The administration also has pulled direct aid to food banks.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture in March nixed more than $1 billion from two programs that helped food banks and school meal programs buy local foods including fruits, vegetables and proteins.

Also this spring, the administration abruptly cut $500 million from a program that sends domestically produced meat, dairy, eggs and produce to food banks. The items that were delivered through The Emergency Food Assistance Program were some of the healthiest, most expensive items organizations distribute, ProPublica reported.

In Missouri alone, that move canceled 124 scheduled deliveries to food banks, including 146,400 pounds of cheese, 433,070 pounds of canned and frozen chicken and 1.2 million eggs.

“Food banks have been operating on fumes since the pandemic,” said Gina Plata-Nino, interim SNAP director at the Food Research & Action Center, a national nonprofit working to address poverty-related hunger. “As much as we love the food banks and the superhero work that they’re doing, they can only do so much.”

Already rising demand

Plata-Nino said food banks and food pantries were intended as emergency food aid, but have become “a way of life” for many who struggle to afford groceries.

A disruption in SNAP benefits will cause millions to make impossible decisions about how to stretch their limited dollars, Plata-Nino said. She noted that the majority of SNAP recipients make less than $1,100 per month. (The liberal-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates the average SNAP benefit this fiscal year is about $188 per month per person.)

“People are already making really difficult choices,” she said, “and I hate to call it a choice, because it’s not a choice when you don’t have one.”

In Texas, the San Antonio Food Bank has been responding to a surge in need from furloughed federal workers. With major Defense Department operations across the area, San Antonio is home to the largest number of federal employees in Texas.

Eric Cooper, the food bank’s president and chief executive officer, estimates it will serve about 50,000 more people who have gone without paychecks this month. Each year, the food bank serves about 577,000 people across 29 counties.

He recalled one furloughed U.S. Social Security Administration employee who recently visited for the first time. Though she weathered previous shutdowns, she now takes care of her grandchildren.

“She’s like, ‘Hey, I showed up to get food because I don’t know if I’m going to get paid, and I can’t let my grandbabies go hungry,’” Cooper said.

Given the disruption to SNAP, Cooper said the food bank has been gearing up to not only increase inventory but also manage limited supplies and heightened emotions among the public.

“Should the demand start to outpace our supply, we will start to ration,” he said. “Rather than giving a week’s worth of food or two weeks’ worth of food, we’re going to be giving less.”

Generally, the need for free food spikes during times of natural disasters or recessions, said Michelle Ness, executive director of PRISM, a nonprofit providing housing and food assistance in suburban Minneapolis.

But Minnesota food shelves, known as food pantries in other parts of the country, have seen a 150% increase in visits since the pandemic, she said.

“This is during nonemergency times, nondisaster times — needs are going way up,” she said. “Right now, food shelves are at just about the max capacity we can handle.”

To meet the projected increase in demand because of the SNAP disruption, Ness said her organization’s food shelf is considering launching a sort of express lane that would allow people to quickly pick up prepackaged boxes of food. She hopes donors will increase their giving to avoid rationing food.

“If anything, I would like to be able to give out more food, because people will have greater needs without getting SNAP benefits,” she said. “That’s a lot of food that they’re not going to have to fill their refrigerator and cupboards.”

A daily necessity

While nonprofits happily take donated food items, much of the stock is purchased. And that doesn’t come cheap — even with discounts for purchasing foods in bulk from nonprofit food banks.

The Food Group, a Minneapolis food bank that supplies PRISM and other operators, has had to raise its prices and cut back on certain expensive items — including eggs, said Executive Director Sophia Lenarz-Coy.

In the past year, The Food Group has raised its wholesale prices of spaghetti by 26%. Jasmine rice has gone up 6%, and dry potatoes have increased 11%. Between 2022 and 2025, a case of frozen ground beef has increased from just under $50 to $63.08 — a 28% spike. Cases of margarine have risen 39% over that time, and diced tomatoes have gone up 23%.

“I think it’s really hard to overstate just how grocery prices have changed in the last three years,” said Lenarz-Coy.

While higher earners can make adjustments in their monthly budgets, she noted that food is often the only flexible item in lower-income household budgets.

“Housing costs, how much you need to pay for transportation or medical costs or day care — those are all fixed costs,” she said. “The place where people can flex is on food, but those flexes just don’t get you as much as they used to.”

Back in southeast Kansas, Mitchell, of the Community Access Center, has come to appreciate the urgency of hunger.

Mitchell previously worked in homeless services. Oftentimes, people can get by temporarily staying with friends and families, but food is a constant, daily need, he noted.

“It’s like going without liquid,” he said. “You just don’t last very long without it. And that’s probably what hurts me the most about this cutoff.”

The looming SNAP disruption has him bracing for panic among those who rely on the pantry.

The per capita annual income in Independence is just under $30,000, and about a quarter of all children live in poverty, according to U.S. Census Bureau figures.

To meet surging demand, Mitchell is considering further limiting the pantry’s already rationed offerings, whether families have one person or six in the household.

“That kills my heart,” he said. “But that’s so everybody gets some. … I’ve got this many people, and I’ve got to make sure that I can put something in each hand.”

Located inside a beige cinderblock building, the one-room food pantry is set up like a grocery store, with freezers for meats, refrigerators for fresh veggies and shopping carts for browsing.

Mitchell is proud to offer that kind of choice for people, which makes the process more dignified and reduces the likelihood that food goes to waste.

But a rush of visits next week — and concerns about hoarding and public safety — may force the nonprofit to reinstate its pandemic-era practice of handing out prepackaged boxes outdoors.

“It feels like going backwards,” Mitchell said.

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

The U.S. Capitol. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — U.S. Senate Democrats urged Republican leaders Wednesday to pass a bill to extend critical food assistance for the most vulnerable Americans during the ongoing government shutdown.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said Wednesday that Democrats would support a standalone bill introduced by GOP Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley. And New Mexico Democratic Sen. Ben Ray Luján attempted to pass by unanimous consent his bill to fund two major nutrition assistance programs.

“Let’s end this hunger crisis before it begins,” Schumer said on the Senate floor. 

But Senate Majority Leader John Thune objected to Luján’s proposal, and the government shutdown entered its fifth week with lawmakers of both parties showing no signs of the agreement needed to reopen the government in time to avoid putting 42 million people at risk of losing their Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, benefits Saturday.

Beneficiaries of SNAP, which covers low-income people, children and those with disabilities, are supposed to receive payments Nov. 1. But the shutdown and the Trump administration’s contention it cannot release contingency funding to cover the cost of November benefits mean many will go without.

Democrats held several press conferences Wednesday, the shutdown’s 29th day, raising concerns about the loss of SNAP benefits and slamming the U.S. Department of Agriculture for not tapping into its multi-year contingency fund to approve food assistance for November. 

The move has caused states to scramble to provide aid, strained local food banks and has resulted in a lawsuit from dozens of state officials this week to force the agency to release funds for SNAP.

Schumer, a New York Democrat, urged Thune, a South Dakota Republican, to bring Hawley’s bill to the Senate for a floor vote. The bill would fund SNAP amid the funding lapse. 

Thune declines to bring standalone bills

But Thune has rejected considering bills that fund single programs during the shutdown. He has instead pushed for Democrats to approve a House-passed GOP measure to temporarily reopen the government.

“We’re not going to pick winners and losers,” he said after objecting to Lujan’s bill.”It’s time to fund everybody who’s experiencing the pain from this shutdown.”

Thune said on the Senate floor that he will only call another vote on the House-passed GOP stopgap measure if Senate Democrats “tell me they have enough votes to fund the government.”

The Senate this week, for the 13th time, failed to reach the 60-vote threshold to move forward on a measure to extend government funding through Nov. 21. 

Democrats have voted against the short-term funding bill in an effort to spark negotiations on tax credits that will expire at the end of the year for people who buy their health insurance through the Affordable Care Act marketplace. Republicans have said those talks can begin when the government is funded. 

Open enrollment for the ACA marketplace starts Nov. 1 in most states. Democrats have predicted that when people start getting their quotes for health insurance and seeing significantly higher prices for out-of-pocket premiums, it will force Republicans to negotiate on tax credits. 

“We are days away from a health care crisis,” Schumer said.  

Shutdown to become ‘very real’

House Speaker Mike Johnson said during a morning press conference the government shutdown “gets very real” Saturday when the federal government will no longer pay out SNAP benefits. 

“You’re talking about tens of millions of Americans at risk of going hungry, if the Senate Democrats continue this gambit,” Johnson said. 

The Louisiana Republican, who voted against the stopgap spending bill that ended the 2018-2019 shutdown, repeatedly urged rank-and-file Democratic senators to “do the right thing.”

“I think Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries are irredeemable at this point,” Johnson said, referring to the top Democrats in both chambers. “I’ve given up on the leadership. So we’re trying to appeal to a handful of moderates or centrists who care more about the American people and will put the people’s interest over their own and do the right thing in the Senate.”

Johnson also disparaged a lawsuit filed by Democratic attorneys general that asked a federal judge to require funding for SNAP be paid out during the government shutdown. 

“Instead of taking a simple vote to fund the government, which Senate Democrats have now had more than a dozen opportunities to do, Democrat attorneys general are suing the federal government to try to compel SNAP benefits to flow, despite the government being closed and despite the fact that there is no money to do that,” Johnson said.

Freeze on SNAP contingency fund questioned

Luján held up a printed out copy of USDA’s Sept. 30 shutdown contingency plan during an early afternoon press conference, saying the agency’s refusal to tap into its emergency funds for SNAP recipients was nonsensical.

He slammed the agency for removing its own contingency plan from its website, which verifies that in case of a funding lapse, USDA would use its roughly $6 billion in contingency funds to cover SNAP benefits during a government shutdown.

“This is the bulls–t, taking these plans down to try to lie to the American people and justify why it’s okay for people to go hungry,” Luján said. 

Luján’s bill that he tried to get approval through unanimous consent, would have funded SNAP during a government shutdown as well as the USDA’s Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, or WIC.

Senate Agriculture Committee ranking Democrat Amy Klobuchar, of Minnesota, said that Democrats are ready to support Lujan’s bill or Hawley’s bill. She added that she and several other Democrats plan to co-sponsor Hawley’s bill. So far, Sen. Peter Welch of Vermont is the only Democrat to co-sponsor the bill.

The 10 Senate Republicans who have co-sponsored Hawley’s bill include Sens. Katie Britt of Alabama, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Susan Collins of Maine, Kevin Cramer of North Dakota, Bernie Moreno and Jon Husted of Ohio, James Lankford of Oklahoma, Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee and John Cornyn of Texas. 

Colorado Democratic Rep. Joe Neguse argued during a midday press conference that Trump administration officials have “made a conscious and deliberate choice to suspend SNAP benefits.”

“It is outrageous that the Trump administration can come up with $40 billion to bail out Argentina and refuses to spend the money that Congress has appropriated to feed hungry families in America,” Neguse said. 

House Agriculture Committee ranking member Angie Craig, D-Minn., said the law regarding SNAP’s contingency fund “is clear and unambiguous” and that Trump’s “actions display a pattern of callous disregard for America’s hungry seniors, children and veterans.”

Craig said the USDA should use the contingency fund to pay most of the November benefits. The department should then use some of the $23 billion in another account referred to as Section 32 to cover the rest of the cost, Craig said. 

Craig also pushed back against criticisms of SNAP, saying it provides about ​​$6.20 a day for food.

“This does not come close to covering even one trip to the grocery store a month for most American families, especially as this administration has started a trade war that is driving up costs for everyone in our country,” Craig said. “So this is exactly the point.”

Shutdown projected to hurt economy

Because of the ramifications for federal programs like SNAP and delayed paychecks for federal workers, the ongoing shutdown is expected to have a negative impact on the economy, according to an analysis the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released Wednesday.

Director Phillip L. Swagel wrote in an eight-page letter to House Budget Committee Chairman Jodey Arrington, R-Texas, that the funding lapse “will delay federal spending and have a negative effect on the economy that will mostly, but not entirely, reverse once the shutdown ends.”

The federal government spent $33 billion less than it would have during the first four weeks of the shutdown. The funding lapse lasting for six weeks would result in a $54 billion drop in outlays and if it goes on for eight weeks, it would lead the federal government to put $74 billion less into the economy. 

“Those amounts include delayed spending for employee compensation, goods and services, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program,” Swagel wrote. “CBO expects that when appropriations resume, the spending that did not occur during the shutdown will be made up.”

Swagel cautioned that the projections “are subject to considerable uncertainty. 

“The effects of the shutdown will depend on decisions made by the Administration throughout the shutdown, including decisions about which executive branch activities continue and which are halted.”

Democratic lawmakers in Wisconsin have announced food drives and are blaming Republicans for looming cuts in federal food assistance. (Getty Images)

With the expected loss of federal food assistance funding starting Saturday, Democratic state lawmakers are mounting a series of food drives as part of their campaign to draw attention to their argument that Republicans are to blame.

Wisconsin’s FoodShare program will stop receiving its monthly payments from the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, starting Nov. 1.

The Trump administration has blocked further SNAP funding as a result of the federal shutdown that began Oct. 1, although the U.S. Department of Agriculture has $6 billion in reserves. A coalition of Democratic attorneys general and governors, including in Wisconsin, has sued the administration over the refusal to tap the reserve fund.  

In Milwaukee County, Sen. Chris Larson and state Rep. Christine Sinicki, both Milwaukee Democrats, scheduled a news conference and food drive for Thursday morning at a food pantry in Cudahy, a suburb just south of the city.

Across the state, Rep. Jodi Emerson (D-Eau Claire) and Sen. Jeff Smith (D-Brunswick) are holding a news conference and food drive Thursday morning in Eau Claire in conjunction with local nonprofits there.

Reps. Jill Billings (D-La Crosse) and Tara Johnson (D-Town of Shelby) are holding a press conference and food drive on Thursday afternoon at a La Crosse food bank, joined by local advocates. 

The aim is “to highlight the disastrous effects of the shutdown on Wisconsinites and discuss how our community can step up to support the most vulnerable among us in their time of need,” Billings’ office stated in announcing the event.

Johnson has also scheduled an event  and food drive Friday with Sen. Brad Pfaff (D-Onalaska) at a Viroqua food pantry with Vernon County advocates.

In Appleton, the Democratic Party of Outagamie County and state Senate hopeful Emily Tseffos have organized a two-week food drive that began Monday, Oct. 27 and will run through Nov. 8. That drive will supply pantries across the Fox Valley, according to the group.

“The fact that the government remains shut down while people right here are about to go hungry didn’t sit right with me,” Tseffos said in a statement. “So a group of friends and I got together to see what we could do.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

An emergency room nurse tends to a patient at Houston Methodist The Woodlands Hospital in Texas. States, counties and nonprofits are striving to continue their work to close racial health disparity gaps but are struggling amid a loss of federal dollars. (Photo by Brandon Bell/Getty Images)

Racial health disparities may widen as states, universities and nonprofits grapple with federal funding cuts to programs that were aimed at filling gaps in care, public health experts say.

As part of its federal restructuring and crackdown on diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs, the Trump administration has been shuttering federal offices and rescinding grants dedicated to addressing worse health care access and outcomes for racial minorities.

The shake-up has caused some state agencies and nonprofits to pause programs and some groups and universities to apply for foundation grants instead.

Hundreds of grants have been terminated for state, local and territorial health departments as well as nonprofits and universities, many of which addressed health equity across rural, low-income and communities of color.

The nation’s racial health disparities were laid bare during the COVID-19 pandemic, when the virus killed Black, Hispanic and Indigenous people at higher rates than white people. The police murder of George Floyd in May 2020 also fueled a racial reckoning across the nation, prompting efforts by states, universities, health systems and the federal government to address racial health disparities.

Those approaches ranged from targeted vaccine campaigns and efforts to enroll more people of color in clinical trials to corrections of diagnostic tests that relied on inaccurate information about race and biology.

Communities of color have long had less access to health care, increased exposure to environmental pollutants and higher rates of certain chronic illnesses and cancer deaths. They also have more diabetes-related amputations because of a lack of access to care. And specific genetic diseases, such as sickle cell disease, disproportionately affect Black people.

“COVID revealed the impact of health disparities to individual health — as well as how not addressing these disparities undermines the health system for everyone,” said Dr. Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association.

Now, many of the programs trying to address health disparities are being rolled back.

As a result, health policy experts, clinicians and researchers fear those disparities will widen as states, universities and nonprofits grapple with lost federal dollars while the administration continues to limit federal funding for DEI programs. In July, the U.S. Department of Justice released guidance saying such initiatives should not receive federal funding, alleging they are “discriminatory.”

Entities that receive federal funds “must ensure that their programs and activities comply with federal law and do not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, or other protected characteristics—no matter the program’s labels, objectives, or intentions,” the news release said.

Several state and local health officials were reluctant to speak with Stateline on the record about how the federal administration’s DEI crackdown has left them in a bind, fearing retaliation or targeting by the federal government. The White House did not respond to Stateline’s request for comment.

“My concern about what the administration is doing is that they are, in effect, making these disparities worse,” Benjamin said. “Everybody’s health is not the same. … It’s important to know that the disparities are really profound.”

Benjamin added that the cumulative effect of disparities means more late-stage disease — costing both patients and health systems more.

“There’s a trope or misunderstanding out there that DEI is a ‘woke’-related agenda. DEI is not a ‘woke’ agenda. DEI is an American agenda, because it’s really one that is the same thing as ‘rising tides lift all boats,’” said Brandon Wilson, senior director of Health Innovation and Public Health at Community Catalyst, a health equity advocacy organization. “When you cut [resources] off, you’re actually disproportionately impacting those who are already impacted.”

‘Increasing need’

The administration canceled billions of dollars in grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Health and Human Services.

Many of the grants helped recipients create solutions tailored to their communities’ needs and strengths.

At least three dozen state, local and territorial health departments have had pandemic-era grants that addressed health equity terminated. While originally focused on COVID-19, agencies have since used that grant money for other public health efforts: testing and contact tracing for a wide range of diseases, better data reporting, and community partnerships that address social and environmental effects on health.

The money was part of a $2.2 billion national health equity initiative that aimed to address vulnerabilities and protect those communities ahead of the next outbreak.

The Department of Health and Human Services told media such cancellations were due to the pandemic emergency ending in 2023.

At NIH, the administration terminated more than 5,400 NIH research grants, although about 2,800 were reinstated. Canceled grants included research toward illnesses like HIV and AIDS, which disproportionately affect Black and Hispanic people as well as gay and transgender people.

The Trump administration has also gutted federal offices dedicated to fighting disparities, including the Offices of Minority Health under the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and the Department of Health and Human Services.

At the state level, the Arkansas Department of Health recently shut down its own minority health-focused office. Ashley Whitlow, a spokesperson for the department, said in a statement that it “relies on federal grant funding to support a variety of public health programs.”

“The recent reduction in program staff reflects the Arkansas Department of Health’s ongoing efforts to operate more efficiently with the resources available. Despite these changes, ADH remains fully committed to serving communities across the state,” the statement said.

Meanwhile, Maryland’s Department of Health said its minority health office is funded through state general funds and not directly impacted by the federal cuts.

The nation has seen a spike in congenital syphilis cases, which disproportionately occur among Black and Indigenous families.

“Regardless of whether you’re at the highest risk, any outbreak that’s not controlled can spread widely and broadly, and you can see that that’s what’s happening with measles,” said Dr. Julie Morita, former executive vice president of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and former health commissioner Chicago Department of Public Health.

But states likely can’t replace all the lost federal dollars.

“You’ve got declining capacity, and increasing need — which is a formula for problems,” said Richard Frank, director of the Brookings Institution Center on Health Policy.

“It’s impossible to make all that up with state and local dollars,” he continued. “You’re going to see programs that serve real people getting pulled back.”

Frank and Wilson also expressed concern about the Medicaid changes included in the broad tax and spending law President Donald Trump signed in July. The law is projected to cut federal Medicaid spending by an estimated $911 billion over the next decade, largely because new work requirements will push people off the rolls. Data shows the majority of Medicaid enrollees already work, and experts say many will be kicked off the rolls due to difficulties in states’ reporting processes. Black and Hispanic people are disproportionately represented on the Medicaid rolls.

OB-GYN Dr. Versha Pleasant, a clinical assistant professor at the University of Michigan, directs the Cancer Genetics and Breast Health Clinic at Von Voigtlander Women’s Hospital. She treats patients at high risk for breast and ovarian cancers. Black women have an almost 40% higher risk of death from breast cancer than white women.

“That, to me, is unacceptable,” she said, adding that such disparities speak to the need for ongoing programs to “provide everyone with a fair chance at leading a long and healthy life.”

“If we don’t make a special effort to save the most vulnerable lives … where does that leave us?” she continued. “The changes that we’re seeing are only going to magnify preexisting challenges.”

Data and dollars

Dr. Sarah Rudman, acting public health officer at the Santa Clara County Public Health Department in California, and others have told Stateline that federal officials are informing health agencies that race and ethnicity data are no longer required to be reported.

“We are being asked to change the way we collect our own data here and report it,” Rudman said, adding that her county is going to continue collecting data to “understand who is here, who’s experiencing what health outcome and what they need.”

Many families, in the shadow of the county’s Silicon Valley, still struggle with poverty — more than 27,000 children suffer food insecurity, United Way Bay Area says.

“It is sometimes surprising and striking to people to understand how much poverty and other types of vulnerability are hidden among the more visible wealth of Silicon Valley, and that’s where we’ve dedicated our resources,” Rudman said.

“It’s hard to even imagine what my colleagues in smaller areas of California or in other parts of the country are experiencing,” she added about lower-income counties. “We are feeling extremely strained and already in our second round of layoffs, knowing that many more are likely. So I think that the hits are going to be that much more significant in areas who have less resources than we do.”

Federal officials also canceled the county’s $5.7 million grant to address COVID-19-related disparities, used to shore up vulnerable communities ahead of the next disease outbreak, natural disaster or heat wave, Rudman said. The money helped the county conduct basic laboratory testing and vaccine outreach for a wide range of diseases, not just COVID-19.

Stateline reporter Nada Hassanein can be reached at nhassanein@stateline.org.

Advocates gather outside the Hippodrome Theater in Richmond, Virginia, this summer to protest Medicaid cuts. Medicaid covers nearly two-thirds of Black babies’ births in the U.S., federal data shows, and congressional cuts to the program are already limiting reproductive health care in Black and low-income communities. (Photo by Bert Shepherd/Courtesy of Protect Our Care PAC)

At least 90% of Black people surveyed for a new poll said Medicaid is important to them or their families, and more than half either have public insurance or a family member who relies on the program. 

“Medicaid is critical for so many things with regards to making sure that we’re healthy and addressing health disparities. By losing it or weakening it, it is just going to disproportionately harm our communities,” said Regina Davis Moss, the president and CEO of In Our Own Voice: National Black Women’s Reproductive Justice Agenda. 

Davis Moss’ organization commissioned the 10-state poll, which includes views from California, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, New Jersey, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia. Nonpartisan research firm PerryUndem conducted the survey between May and June and interviewed 500 Black adults in each state. 

The findings, shared exclusively with States Newsroom, show a significant number of Black people who want children are not yet planning to have them due to cost and health care concerns. 

Results were released just as several Planned Parenthood clinics that served Black patients with low incomes closed after a law took effect blocking certain reproductive health clinics affiliated with abortion providers from receiving Medicaid reimbursements until July 2026.

Louisiana’s Planned Parenthood clinics, which never offered abortions in their decades of service, closed on Sept. 30. Sixty percent of the Baton Rouge and New Orleans patients were Black and most have Medicaid insurance, States Newsroom reported. One of two Planned Parenthood locations in Memphis, where more than 60% of the population is Black, temporarily closed its doors during the first week of October due to Medicaid cuts, Tennessee Lookout reported. 

“Proximity is important, and the fact that these clinics have to close means that individuals needing their services will go without,” said Danielle Atkinson, executive director of Mothering Justice, a national advocacy group based in Michigan. 

Four Planned Parenthood clinics closed in her state this spring after the Trump administration cut millions of Title X family-planning funding, Michigan Advance reported.  

“They’ll go without STI testing. They’ll go without cancer screening. They’ll go without counseling,” Atkinson said. 

The ban on Medicaid for some reproductive health providers was part of a larger reconciliation package that is also set to slash nearly $1 trillion from Medicaid more broadly over the next decade. 

“Medicaid is a lifeline for Black women, girls and gender-expansive people,” Davis Moss said. The state and federal program covers nearly two-thirds of Black births, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and almost half of all births nationwide. 

Maternal health advocates are bracing for the impact of Medicaid cuts on labor and delivery units, which have already been closing at a rapid pace over the last 10 years, especially in rural communities. A maternity ward in northeast Georgia, one of the states included in the poll, will close at the end of the month partially due to Medicaid cuts, Georgia Recorder reported in September. 

Findings from the In Our Own Voice poll also show that Black people of reproductive age — 18 to 44 in this case — want children but are not planning to have them, citing high costs of living. 

California had the biggest disparity of 28 percentage points: 56% want children but only 28% plan to have them. 

“I believe some of the reasons they said are not new issues that we are grappling with, but it’s deeply concerning because they are being exacerbated in this current administration,” Davis Moss said. 

At least 69% of Black people polled in each of the 10 states said they worry about being able to take care of children or more children than they already have, while at least 67% cited housing costs and 57% pointed to child care expenses. 

“In a lot of these states, the cost of child care is more expensive than a year of tuition, which is such a barrier for people to be able to: one, go into the workforce, two, have that early intervention and early education that really sets their children up for success, and three, give individuals and families the opportunity to go and explore careers and learning opportunities,” Atkinson said. 

Abortion restrictions played a factor in family planning, too, though in smaller numbers. At least 45% said they don’t want children because they or their loved one could die from pregnancy, while 43% worry about miscarriage care and 30% said abortion bans are stopping them from growing their families. 

Three of the states included in the poll — Florida, Georgia and North Carolina — have abortion bans stricter than 20 weeks. Voters in California, Michigan and Ohio approved reproductive rights amendments in recent years that secured the right to an abortion up to fetal viability, while Nevada and Virginia may have similar safeguards in place after the midterms. 

A majority of voters in each of the 10 states say abortion should be legal in all or most cases and at least 78% say Black women should make the decisions about pregnancy that’s best for them. 

Overall, at least half of Black adults polled are struggling with economic security. Black women of reproductive age were more likely to expect less safety and security throughout the rest of Republican President Donald Trump’s second term than Black men. 

“We’re getting ready to celebrate our 250 years, and all the things that we have fought for and all these things that we have gained in terms of civil rights and human rights, they are under threat like never before,” Davis Moss said. 

U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., talks with reporters inside the Capitol building in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday, Oct. 21, 2025. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — The government shutdown became the second longest in U.S. history Wednesday, though the mounting repercussions for dozens of federal programs, including food aid for some of the country’s most vulnerable residents, failed to spur any momentum in Congress. 

The Senate was unable for the 12th time to advance a stopgap spending bill that would have reopened the government and kept funding mostly on autopilot through Nov. 21. 

The 54-46 vote was nearly identical to those that have come before, a predictable outcome since neither Republicans nor Democrats are talking to each other. The legislation needed at least 60 votes to advance under the Senate’s legislative filibuster. 

Nevada Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto and Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman, both Democrats, and Maine independent Sen. Angus King voted with Republicans to advance the legislation. Kentucky GOP Sen. Rand Paul voted no.

The vote came shortly after Oregon Democratic Sen. Jeff Merkley held the floor for nearly 23 hours, speaking at length about his concerns and objections to President Donald Trump’s administration. 

The government staying shut down much longer will lead to a funding shortfall for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, which is relied on by 42 million low-income Americans, nearly 40% of them children younger than 17. 

Despite that looming deadline, congressional leaders remain in their political silos, just as they have since before the shutdown began 22 days ago. They’ve repeatedly held press conferences and meetings with their own members instead of making the types of compromises needed to keep government functioning on the most basic level. 

Republican leaders are waiting for Democrats to help advance the stopgap spending bill in the Senate and say they won’t negotiate on anything until after that happens. 

Democrats maintain they won’t support the House-passed continuing resolution until there is bipartisan agreement to extend tax credits that are set to expire at the end of the year for people who buy their health insurance through the Affordable Care Act Marketplace. 

Johnson warns funding process at risk

The stalled short-term spending bill is supposed to give lawmakers more time to work out agreement on the dozen full-year government funding bills, which Congress was supposed to pass by the Oct. 1 start of the fiscal year. 

But Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., warned during a morning press conference that lawmakers may scrap that process for a second year in a row if Democrats don’t advance the continuing resolution soon. 

“We’re getting closer to November. It is going to be more and more difficult with each passing hour to get all the appropriations done on time,” Johnson said. “We acknowledge that, but we have to do this on a day-by-day basis.”

House Democratic leadership dismissed the notion of a longer temporary spending bill or continuing resolution, possibly for a full year, during an afternoon press conference. 

Democratic Whip Katherine Clark, of Massachusetts, said her message to Republicans is, “Why are you talking about the length of the (continuing resolution)? Come to the table and negotiate with us. End this health care crisis, help the American people.”

Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries sidestepped specifics when asked about a longer stopgap funding bill.

“At this point, we need to reopen the government. We need to enact a spending bill that actually meets the needs of the American people in terms of their health, their safety and economic well-being, particularly in terms of driving down the high cost of living, while at the same time decisively addressing the Republican health care crisis that grows greatly by the day,” the New York Democrat said.

Lawmakers have been unable to approve all the annual funding bills on time since 1996 and have consistently relied on stopgap spending bills to give themselves more time to work out agreements between the House and Senate. 

The alternative to full-year government funding bills is to use a series of stopgap spending bills, or one that lasts the entire year that keeps spending mostly on autopilot. 

Either option requires bipartisanship to gain the support of at least 60 senators, since Republicans control 53 seats. That means the only solution to the shutdown is for Republican and Democratic leaders to compromise. 

But that seemed like a remote possibility Wednesday. 

Democrats criticize layoffs

House Democrats’ Steering and Policy Committee held a mock hearing where they railed against Republicans and Trump for how they’ve managed unified control of government. 

House Appropriations Committee ranking member Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., rebuked Trump administration officials for trying to lay off federal workers by the thousands and for canceling funding to projects in regions of the country that vote for Democrats. 

“It is a corrupt abuse of power that they have chosen to carry out,” DeLauro said. 

White House budget director Russ Vought and Trump, she said, “have launched a scorched earth campaign to decimate the federal government and the programs and services the American people depend on.”

Rob Shriver, managing director of the civil service strong and good government initiatives at Democracy Forward, who worked as deputy director at the Office of Personnel Management during the Biden administration, said the layoffs could negatively affect federal operations for years. 

“The government has had historic challenges in recruiting young people and recruiting tech talent, and what this administration is doing is turning it into a workforce that doesn’t try to recruit the best and the brightest, but that tries to recruit the most loyal,” Shriver said. 

Lawsuit gains more unions

The Trump administration’s efforts to lay off thousands of workers during the shutdown have been on hold since last week, when a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order that was later expanded.  

The lawsuit was originally brought by the American Federation of Government Employees and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. It expanded last week to include the National Federation of Federal Employees, the National Association of Government Employees and the Service Employees International Union.

The updated restraining order issued by U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Judge Susan Illston applies to any federal department or agency that includes employees represented by those unions, even if the Trump administration doesn’t recognize their contracts. 

Illston on Wednesday granted a request to add the National Treasury Employees Union, International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers and American Federation of Teachers to the case. 

Illston wrote that she found “good cause exists to modify the existing TRO without a written response from defendants due to the emergency nature of this case.” 

Those three unions represent hundreds of thousands more federal workers, including those at the departments of Commerce, Defense, Energy, Health and Human Services, Interior, Justice and Veterans Affairs. 

Employees at the Environmental Protection Agency, Internal Revenue Service, National Aeronautics and Space Administration and Social Security Administration are also represented by the three new unions seeking to join the case. 

The next stage in the lawsuit comes on Oct. 28, when the judge has set a hearing to determine whether to issue a preliminary injunction in the case. 

‘Patently illegal’

AFGE National President Everett Kelley wrote in a statement released Wednesday that the “administration’s move to fire thousands of patriotic civil servants while the government is shut down is patently illegal, and I’m glad we are able to expand our lawsuit to protect even more federal workers from facing termination.”

“President Trump has made no secret that this is about punishing his political enemies and has nothing to do with the actual work that these employees perform,” Kelley added. “Data provided by the administration under court order illustrates how vast and unlawful these intended firings are and validates our union’s determination to challenge this illegal action.”

Ashley Murray contributed to this report. 

A sign on the entrance to the U.S. National Arboretum is seen as it is closed due to the federal government shut down on Oct. 1, 2025 in Washington, D.C.  (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

This report has been updated.

WASHINGTON — A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order Wednesday, blocking the Trump administration from moving forward with the thousands of layoffs it initiated after the government shutdown began Oct. 1, as well as any others that officials might want to carry out.  

The hearing in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California took place at the same time White House budget director Russ Vought appeared on the conservative Charlie Kirk podcast to preview his next steps.

Vought warned the initial Reductions in Force, the technical term for a layoff notice, were just “a snapshot” and that as many as 10,000 federal workers would lose their jobs if the shutdown drags on.

“We’re going to keep those RIFs rolling throughout this shutdown because we think it’s important to stay on offense for the American taxpayer and the American people,” Vought said. “We want to be very aggressive where we can be in shuttering the bureaucracy, not just the funding, but the bureaucracy.”

Judge Susan Illston said during the hearing that she granted the temporary restraining order because Trump administration officials had “taken advantage of the lapse in government spending, government functioning to assume that all bets are off, that the laws don’t apply to them anymore and that they can impose the structures that they like on the government situation that they don’t like.” 

Illston said laws and regulations still apply during a shutdown and that, by all appearances, the Trump administration’s actions in the case are politically motivated. 

“Things are being done before they’re thought through — very much ready, fire, aim,” Illston said.

The ruling will put the approximately 4,000 layoffs noticed during the shutdown on hold as the court case proceeds. 

DOJ unprepared to speak on merits of case

Elizabeth Hedges, a Justice Department attorney arguing the case on behalf of the Trump administration, said several times during the brief hearing she wasn’t prepared to speak about the merits of the case — a position that confounded the judge, who gave Hedges several chances to reverse course.  

“We may be able to address the merits at the next stage,” Hedges said, after telling Illston she would need to check with others before making any statements about why the administration believes its actions are legal. 

Danielle Leonard, an attorney representing the labor unions that brought the lawsuit, urged the judge to grant a temporary restraining order for all the departments and agencies that make up the executive branch, not just those that have announced RIFs.

Leonard said she believes Trump administration officials have decided how many additional federal employees to lay off during the shutdown, but have opted not to share that information with the court.

“The decision has been made, it’s just a question of implementation and timing,” Leonard said, around the same time Vought was giving his podcast interview. 

Illston, who was nominated by former President Bill Clinton, said at the end of the hearing she expected the attorneys to find a day in the coming weeks when they can attend a hearing on the next stage, which would be a preliminary injunction.

Senate deadlocks for ninth time

On the other side of the country, Republicans and Democrats continued to spar on Capitol Hill over the reasons for the shutdown, as the Senate failed for a ninth time to advance a short-term government spending bill. 

The 51-44 vote was nearly identical to the others that have taken place since mid-September, and neither side appeared inclined to make concessions or even try to negotiate. 

Nevada Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto and Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman, both Democrats, and Maine independent Sen. Angus King voted with Republicans to advance the bill. Kentucky GOP Sen. Rand Paul voted no.

Democrats maintain there must be a bipartisan deal to extend the enhanced tax credits that are set to expire at the end of this year for people who get their health insurance from the Affordable Care Act Marketplace. 

GOP leaders said they are willing to begin negotiations on that issue, but only after Democrats vote to advance the stopgap bill that would fund government through Nov. 21. 

The House voted mostly along party lines to approve the legislation in mid-September, but it has remained stalled in the Senate ever since, unable to garner the 60 votes needed to advance toward final passage. Republicans control the chamber with 53 seats.

Congress needs to approve the stopgap bill since it, once again, failed to approve all 12 of the full-year government funding bills by the Oct. 1 start of the new fiscal year.

The only other way to end the funding lapse would be for both chambers to reach a broadly bipartisan consensus on all of those appropriations bills. 

Layoffs across agencies

The layoffs initiated by the Trump administration during the shutdown were detailed further on Tuesday in court filings from the labor unions’ attorneys as well as Trump administration officials.  

Stephen Billy, senior adviser at the Office of Management and Budget, wrote the number of layoff notices had changed since Friday when he outlined the Reductions in Force to the court.

The numbers have fluctuated significantly for some departments, but not for all. 

• Commerce: Approximately 600 employees, up from 315
• Education: Remained at 466 employees
• Health and Human Services: 982 employees, down from a range of 1,100 to 1,200
• Housing and Urban Development: Stayed at 442 employees
• Homeland Security: Decreased to 54 from 176 employees
• Treasury: Reduced somewhat to 1,377 employees, from 1,446 

Energy, EPA layoffs

Federal workers at those departments have 60 days between when the notice was sent and when they will no longer have jobs, though a different standard is in place at the Energy Department and the Environmental Protection Agency. 

Energy officials, the document says, “issued a general RIF notice informing 179 employees that they may receive a specific notice in the future if it is determined they will be part of any RIF. If so, that notice would provide the relevant notice period.”

But a spokesperson for the Energy Department emailed States Newsroom on Tuesday evening to confirm officials had issued RIF notices to workers in the Offices of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Clean Energy Demonstrations, State and Community Energy Programs and Minority Economic Impact.

“All these offices played a major role in the Biden administration’s war on American Energy,” the spokesperson wrote. “They oversaw billions of dollars in wasteful spending and massive regulatory overreach, resulting in more expensive and less reliable energy. These offices are being realigned to reflect the Trump administration’s commitment to advancing affordable, reliable, and secure energy for the American people and a more responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars.”

Further confusing the situation at the Energy Department, a footnote in the court document filed by Billy said that particular agency isn’t actually experiencing a lapse in funding. 

The Billy court document said EPA officials sent 28 employees “intent to RIF” notices and will send formal RIF notices “to any affected employees at least 60 days prior to the effective date.” 

A separate document, filed by Thomas J. Nagy Jr., deputy assistant secretary for Human Resources at HHS, said “data discrepancies and processing errors” led to 1,760 employees receiving layoff notices instead of the intended 982.

“Employees have been working since October 10, 2025, to rescind the notices that had been issued in error,” Nagy wrote. 

At CDC, ‘eliminating entire offices’

Yolanda Jacobs, president of the American Federation of Government Employees Local 2883, wrote in a brief to the court that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention “issued RIF notices to approximately 1,300 employees, eliminating entire offices at the agency. Then, within 24 hours, the CDC rescinded approximately 700 of those RIF notices.” 

Jacobs wrote the 600 CDC workers who received RIFs will officially lose their jobs on Dec. 8, even though they have already lost access to work email and computers. 

“Many Union members have told me that they are experiencing serious mental health problems and have found it very difficult to get their work done, given all of the turmoil that they have experienced this year,” Jacobs wrote, referencing previous RIF notices and reinstatements. “Members have told me that they worry on a day-to-day basis about whether they will have a job the next day. They said that they have felt like the Trump Administration has been using them as bargaining chips this year.”

Jacobs wrote that the Trump administration has decided to lay off many human resources workers, which had blocked other workers who received RIFs from being able to get information about how to roll over their health insurance coverage. 

During past RIFs, she wrote, workers had “access to the employment records, including paystubs and performance records, that they need for processing their separations,” but cannot since they are locked out of computer systems. 

Layoffs hit Department of Education

Rachel Gittleman, president of AFGE Local 252, which represents nearly 3,000 Education Department workers, wrote in a separate filing the layoffs will impact numerous programs, including civil rights, communications and outreach, elementary and secondary education, post secondary education, and special education and rehabilitative services.

“Receiving RIF notices has caused many employees enormous stress. A father of two young boys contacted me—he just moved into a new home and relies on his job to support his family,” Gittleman wrote. “He told me (he) doesn’t know what he will do next.”

Workers on maternity or disability leave also received layoff notices, “forcing them to job-hunt and face financial insecurity while managing newborns or health conditions,” she wrote. 

Following past RIF notices, the department provided “career transitioning and counseling, benefits and retirement training, and access to other human resources and employee assistance programs.” But Gittleman wrote that isn’t happening this time. 

‘Devastated’ HUD employees

Ashaki Robinson, regional vice president for AFGE Council 222, which represents nearly 5,000 HUD workers, said the layoff notices for that department will impact employees in Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Massachusetts, Puerto Rico, Texas and Washington, D.C., who manage a variety of programs. 

“They are devastated that the RIF is happening and are very concerned about losing their incomes, health insurance coverage for themselves and dependents, and other employment benefits in 60 days, when they will be separated from employment,” Robinson wrote. 

The hundreds of HUD workers who have received RIF notices, she wrote, were “targeted for termination not because of anything they did themselves, but because of decisions made by elected officials that may have been driven by politics.”

Photo by Westend61/Getty Images

If someone had walked past the storage of the neuroscience lab at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in May, they might have heard quiet sobbing.

It was Uma Chatterjee, a doctoral student, having a severe obsessive-compulsive disorder flare-up triggered by the pressure of disappearing research funding.

Since January, core funding from the National Science Foundation and National Institutes of Health has faced deep cuts. The administration of President Donald Trump has cut more than $4 billion from the National Institutes of Health and $970 million from the National Science Foundation, affecting more than 7,000 grants, according to Grant Witness, a database tracked by scientists. Although a federal judge ordered the NIH to reinstate some funding, Scott Delaney, a co-founder of Grant Witness, said that “most grants that have been terminated are still terminated. They haven’t come back, and they likely won’t.”

Among the programs being targeted are those designed to expand access to science for underrepresented groups — including people with disabilities, who account for one in four adults in the U.S.

In 2021, President Joe Biden’s administration issued an executive order that prioritized their inclusion in the federal workforce. But the Trump administration has mounted a broad attack on diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility initiatives, leaving some early career scientists with disabilities increasingly uncertain about their place in a field where they have long faced systemic barriers.

Chatterjee studies the biology and treatment of OCD, a neuropsychiatric disorder that affected an estimated 1.2% of U.S. adults last year, according to the National Institute of Mental Health. Her lab was awarded a five-year NIH grant expected to provide annual funding, but a few months ago the amount was reduced without explanation, according to Chatterjee. Now the lab is struggling to pay its staff, she said.

Disability researcher harmed

Chatterjee is not the only early career disabled scholar affected. Soli Guzman, a Mount Holyoke College graduate with multiple chronic and neurological conditions, had plans to continue research in protein biochemistry through a program that places underrepresented recent graduates in labs across the country — but those plans were upended by funding cuts.

In April, the NIH ended funding for the Postbaccalaureate Research Education Program, forcing colleges nationwide to halt applications. About 50 campus-based programs were affected when DEI initiatives came under political attack, according to John Shacka, an associate professor at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, who chairs a group of PREP program directors. After two lawsuits — one brought by Massachusetts and a coalition of states, the other by public health groups and others — challenged the cuts, a federal judge ordered the grants restored. But last month, the Supreme Court ruled that the lower court lacked jurisdiction, although it left in place the finding that NIH’s process was unlawful. Meanwhile, roughly half of PREP programs remain without support, according to Shacka.

When PREP was first suspended, Guzman had just finished submitting 27 applications to local programs across the country. “The ground was ripped out from under me,” they said. “I’m a planner. I always have a backup. But suddenly, Plan A and Plan B were both gone. I was devastated.”

In April, Guzman received an offer from the University of Wisconsin–Madison. Because of funding delays, the university could not place them with a principal investigator until early August. At that point, the lab required them to commit within 10 days.

They turned it down.

They also faced financial and logistical hurdles: the challenge of finding affordable housing, the difficulty of quickly finding a roommate, and the need to pay out of pocket for repairs to a car that lacked proper heating. As a person with disabilities, moving would also have meant establishing a new network of care providers. “My health is at its best since 2020, and I didn’t want to change how good my health is,” they said. “If I got sick, I was stuck.”

NSF grantmaking has also stalled. Tara Lepore, a postdoctoral researcher at Western Michigan University and a grant reviewer, said NSF had paused most review activity for months. While the agency’s grantmaking process has recently resumed, many grants that were already awarded were revoked, something they had never seen before.

Lepore, who lives with multiple disabilities, studies equity in STEM education, or science, technology, engineering and math education. The NSF proposal that they submitted would have funded undergraduate and doctoral students to build collaborations between STEM instructors and neurodiverse students. In June, they heard that while the NSF grant was deemed “highly competitive,” it would not be funded because it did not align with the  administration’s priorities.

“It has all the words that the administration doesn’t like in it,” Lepore said.

In February, NPR reported that the NSF had begun using a keyword filter, flagging terms such as “diverse” and “underrepresented” to screen applications, aligning with new restrictions on DEI content.

Lepore’s project centers on “STEM,” “education” and “equity.”

Capital & Main contacted the NSF and the NIH to ask whether the cuts will affect initiatives designed to expand disabled people’s access to the workforce, education and other areas of public life.

Cassandra Eichner, a spokesperson for the NSF, pointed Capital & Main to a statement made by Sethuraman Panchanathan, the NSF’s director, in April, in which he said that the agency’s investments “should not preference some groups at the expense of others, or directly/indirectly exclude individuals or groups.”

An email from the NIH press team said: “NIH and [the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services] are taking actions to prioritize research” that directly affects “the health of all Americans. We will leave no stone unturned in [our] mission to Make America Healthy Again.”

The New York Times reported in February that the NSF had indefinitely postponed an engineering workshop aimed at workforce inclusion for people with autism and other neurocognitive differences in the workforce.

Funding cuts worsen longstanding systematic bias

Guzman’s path to becoming a scientist has been marked by significant health challenges. In college, they developed long COVID-19 and postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, or POTS, leaving them mostly bedridden. They were later diagnosed with Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, a connective tissue disorder. Despite holding student leadership roles and completing three research projects, their chronic health issues affected their grade point average, which stood at 3.4.

“Disabled people are the only minority group anyone can join at any point in their life — but we’re treated like a problem,” they said. “I’ve even been told not to mention my disability in job applications because, in this political climate, it’s too risky. ”

Chatterjee, who studies biomedical science, shared that view. While she was in college, her health nearly derailed her studies. She graduated with a 1.83 grade point average and had to pursue a master’s degree before applying to doctoral programs. She said lab work remains one of the least accessible academic environments for disabled scientists.

“Our work is dependent on rigid protocols, timing and animal models. There’s almost no room for flexibility,” Chatterjee said. “In theory, there should be systems to help — accommodations, people to back you up — but in practice, the culture is incredibly toxic. People brag about working 80, 100 hours a week, skipping holidays, never taking time off. I fought tooth and nail to get here.”

And it’s not just about inclusion or justice. Chatterjee said she believes the Trump administration’s assault on accessibility represents a loss of potential.

Guzman, who is working in a lab focused on disability-related research, echoed this view. They pointed to the Norris Lab at the Medical University of South Carolina’s Department of Regenerative Medicine & Cell Biology in Charleston, South Carolina, which studies Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, and said that many in the lab live with the condition themselves. To Guzman, this is a clear example of how lived experience can drive empathy and innovation. “We’re often more flexible and empathetic because of our own experiences,” they said. “That makes a difference not just in what gets studied, but in how labs are run and how students are supported.”

Yet scientists who bring their perspective remain scarce. According to the National Science Foundation, only about 10% of STEM Ph.D. recipients reported having a disability.

“A lot of diversity fellowships end up going to people who are marginalized but still fit the mold of being ‘high-performing,’” Chaterjee said. “Disabled researchers who need real accommodations are often left out, because the system still measures worth by productivity instead of equity.”

Copyright 2025 Capital & Main. Credit and a link to the original story at Capital & Main are required when republishing.

Capital & Main is an award-winning nonprofit publication whose mission is to educate the public on matters of importance such as economic inequality, climate change, health care, threats to democracy, hate and extremism and immigration.

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.”

The roof of the Hotel Verdant in Downtown Racine is topped with a green roof planted with sedum and covered with solar panels. (Wisconsin Examiner photo)

The news that $130 million in already-committed clean-energy funding for Wisconsin is on the chopping block is not abstract politics. It pulls real tools out of Wisconsin homes, schools, farms, and shop floors — right as our state is building momentum. The result is simple: higher bills, fewer choices, and lost jobs.

In a purple state like ours, climate action has succeeded because it’s kitchen-table common sense. It lowers costs, creates good local jobs, and protects the air and water families depend on. Our playbook is pragmatic — align smart policy with market innovation, center justice, and let businesses, workers, tribes and frontline communities lead together. Clawing back funds mid-stream breaks that compact and injects uncertainty just when we need reliability and speed.

What’s at stake here and now

Across Wisconsin, 82 clean-energy projects are moving forward: EV-charging corridors that support tourism and commerce from Superior to Kenosha; solar on schools and farms that cuts operating costs and keeps dollars local; grid upgrades that reduce outages for households and manufacturers. Clean energy already supports more than 71,000 Wisconsin jobs, with manufacturers, contractors and building trades poised to add tens of thousands more if the rules stay steady.

This is not coastal hype — it’s Menomonee Valley and the Fox Valley. Companies like Ingeteam in Milwaukee build components that power wind and EV projects nationwide. Give our manufacturers clear, predictable rules and Wisconsin will keep making core parts of the transition -— batteries, solar panels, wind components, EV chargers, and smart-grid equipment -— right here at home.

Schools and local governments are also using direct-pay to put solar on rooftops, electrify buses, and cut fuel and maintenance. Green Homeowners United and similar groups are helping thousands of households -— including many lower-income homeowners of color — tap rebates that reduce bills and carbon at the same time. These are the practical tools that stretch tight budgets and improve health outcomes in neighborhoods that have carried the burden the longest.

The real cost of policy whiplash

Rolling back incentives is a hidden tax on working families — up to $400 more a year on energy without the savings tools people are using now. With AI and data centers accelerating demand, the cheapest, fastest reliability gains come from efficiency, storage, and renewables. Cut those tools and we invite more price volatility and more outage risk — exactly what Wisconsin manufacturers, hospitals and farms can’t afford.

The “Big, Broken Bill” passed in Washington goes further, weakening EPA pollution standards and letting big polluters sidestep responsibility. That doesn’t eliminate costs; it shifts them to families in the form of asthma, missed school days and medical bills. It’s not fiscal conservatism to socialize pollution costs while privatizing short-term profits.

And for farmers, whose energy and conservation projects were finally penciling out with IRA tools, canceling support mid-contract leaves family farms holding the bag after planning in good faith. That’s not how you build durable rural economies.

Momentum that continues even if funds are cut

Here’s the other half of the story: Wisconsin’s transition won’t stop because some programs are attacked. Market forces, including  the declining cost of renewables and storage, efficiency that pays for itself and corporate and municipal sustainability commitments, continue to drive projects. Public-private partnerships, rural co-ops, tribal governments, school districts and village halls are working together to reduce risk, share data, and scale what works. That coalition will keep moving.

But let’s be clear: Clawbacks and moving goalposts slow us down and raise costs. They strand planning, freeze hiring and deter investment — especially in manufacturing corridors that depend on multi-year production schedules. If Congress wants to improve programs, fine. Just don’t pull the rug out mid-project.

Purple-state practicality: Results over rhetoric

Wisconsin’s approach is neither red nor blue; it’s results-based:

• Lower bills and stronger reliability through weatherization, heat pumps, rooftop and community solar and batteries that keep homes and Main Street businesses running during heat waves and deep freezes.
• Good local jobs in design, construction, electrical, HVAC, machining and advanced manufacturing.
• Cleaner air from electrified school buses and efficient buildings, health benefits that show up in fewer sick days and lower costs.
• Fairness by ensuring benefits land first where burdens have been heaviest.

We’ve also learned to say no when it matters and yes to better options. When a $2 billion methane gas plant was proposed, business and civic leaders asked basic questions: Is this the least-cost, least-risk path for ratepayers? Would it lock us into volatile fuel prices just as renewables, storage, demand response and efficiency are scaling? Pushing for a cleaner, more affordable portfolio wasn’t ideology. It was risk management.

A constructive path forward

• Keep the tools that help Wisconsin build here, hire here, and save here. Don’t rip away commitments families, schools, farms and manufacturers are already using.
• Provide certainty so manufacturers can invest in people and equipment. Certainty is economic development.
• Target affordability and reliability: Expand programs that lower bills, reduce outages, and prioritize investments in communities that have waited the longest for cleaner air and safer housing.
• Let locals lead: Support direct-pay and streamlined approvals for schools, municipalities, tribes and rural co-ops to deploy projects faster and cheaper.

Wisconsin has the talent, the supply chains — more than 350 in-state clean-energy companies — and the tradition of stewardship to lead the clean-energy economy. If we stay focused on trust, collaboration and measurable results, Wisconsin’s green momentum will outpace politics.

Don’t make Wisconsinites pay more to get less. Let’s build it here, power it here and prosper here.

John Imes is co-founder and executive director of the Wisconsin Environmental Initiative and village president of Shorewood Hills. He will speak Oct. 22 on the American Sustainable Business Network national panel “Purple State, Green Momentum” — how Wisconsin’s pragmatic climate playbook lowers bills, creates good local jobs, and protects our air and water.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

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.

President Donald Trump speaks during a Cabinet meeting at the White House on Oct. 9, 2025 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump said Thursday he’s prepared to cancel funding approved by Congress that he believes is going toward programs supported by Democrats, though he didn’t share any additional details during a Cabinet meeting. 

“We’ll be cutting some very popular Democratic programs that aren’t popular with Republicans,” he said. “They wanted to do this, so we’ll give them a little taste of their own medicine.” 

Meanwhile, on day nine of the government shutdown, members of the U.S. Senate for the seventh time failed to advance either a Democratic or Republican stopgap spending bill, and House Speaker Mike Johnson said partisan tensions in his chamber are so intense he is reluctant to bring members back until a resolution is found. 

“This gets personal. Emotions are high. People are upset. I’m upset,” Johnson told reporters at a morning press conference.

Layoffs, denial of back pay also threatened

Trump has signaled throughout the shutdown he wants to unilaterally cancel funding approved by Congress, lay off federal workers by the thousands and may try to reinterpret a 2019 law that requires back pay for furloughed federal employees after the funding lapse ends. 

He has yet to give any real details on those plans or say exactly when he’ll try to take those steps, which would likely result in additional lawsuits. 

Trump said during the hour-long public portion of the Cabinet meeting that Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought would be able to share more details, but Vought never spoke and Trump didn’t call on him. 

“The shutdown has been, you know, pretty damaging. I mean, not yet, because it’s early. But it gets a little bit worse as it goes along,” Trump said. “And we’ll be making cuts that will be permanent and we’re only going to cut Democrat programs. I hate to tell you. I guess that makes sense, but we’re only cutting Democratic programs. But we’re going to start that and we have Russell, who can talk to you about it if he wants to.”

The president is generally required to faithfully execute the laws that Congress approves, including the government funding bills. 

The White House budget office has frozen or canceled funding several times this year without going to lawmakers for approval, which is required under a 1970s law. 

That has led to a slew of lawsuits and the Government Accountability Office repeatedly citing the administration for illegally impounding funds. 

No progress on votes

On Capitol Hill, lawmakers remained deadlocked over how to advance a stopgap bill to fund the government for a few weeks. 

The Senate voted 54-45 on the House-passed bill that would fund federal programs through Nov. 21 and 47-50 on Democrats’ counterproposal that would provide spending authority through Oct. 31 and make substantial changes to health care policy. 

The tally for the seventh vote to advance those two proposals wasn’t much different from the previous ones. Nevada Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto and Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman, both Democrats, as well as Maine independent Sen. Angus King voted with Republicans to advance their bill. Kentucky GOP Sen. Rand Paul voted no.

Legislation needs the support of at least 60 senators to advance under that chamber’s legislative filibuster rule. 

The vote came shortly after Speaker Johnson, R-La., made disparaging remarks about Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer during his press conference, with the two increasingly blaming each other for the funding impasse.  

“There is one thing that Chuck Schumer cares about more than anything else and that is his Senate seat,” Johnson said. “The guy has been in Congress for 44 years. He doesn’t know how to live life outside this building and so he will do anything to make sure that he keeps that seat.”

Johnson, asked about the increasing tensions between Republicans and Democrats over the funding lapse and health care policy, said it is likely better to keep lawmakers in that chamber separated until a resolution is reached. 

“I’m a very patient man, but I am very angry right now because this is dangerous stuff,” Johnson said. “And so, is it better for them, probably, to be physically separated right now? Yeah, it probably is, frankly. 

“I wish that weren’t the case. But we do have to turn the volume down. The best way to turn the volume down is to turn the lights back on and get the government open for the people.”

Shutdown pay for members of the military 

Johnson reiterated that he does not intend to bring the House back from an extended recess to vote on a stand-alone bill to provide on-time paychecks to military members during the shutdown. 

Johnson stuck to his position that the best way to ensure pay for U.S. troops is for Democrats to pass the GOP stopgap spending bill, despite Trump breaking with Johnson on that particular issue. 

Trump, asked Wednesday about the upcoming Oct. 15 payday for military members, said “that probably will happen” and that the “military is always going to be taken care of.”

But, Johnson said during his Thursday press conference the only way out is through the Republican stopgap bill that remains stalled in the Senate. 

“We have already voted to pay the troops. We did it three weeks ago. We put that bill on the floor, and the Republicans voted to pay the troops, TSA agents, border patrol, air traffic control and everybody else,” Johnson said. “So coming back here and doing it and having a duplicative vote to do the same thing they already did would accomplish nothing.”

Schumer, D-N.Y., said during a floor speech the shutdown will not end until after Republicans and Democrats find a way to extend tax credits for people who buy their health insurance from the Affordable Care Act Marketplace past the end of the year. 

Schumer also rebuked Johnson for the House schedule, which has only had members in Washington, D.C., for 12 days since the end of July. 

“If you’re someone who works two jobs or weekends or overtime to make ends meet, what on Earth are you supposed to think when House Republicans can’t even be bothered to show up to reopen the government?” Schumer said. 

New England senators initiate talks

Senate Appropriations Chairwoman Susan Collins, R-Maine, said she has been speaking with New Hampshire Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen about possible solutions to the impasse. 

“I have been in very close contact with Sen. Shaheen, who is very constructive, and is trying to find a path forward,” Collins said.  

“The ACA issue is important to a lot of us, not just to Democrats,” she added. “The tax subsidies were enhanced during COVID. They do need to be reformed, but they do need to be extended as well. They expire at the end of the year. We need to open up government today before more harm is done, before people in the military don’t have their paychecks.”

 Ariana Figueroa and Shauneen Miranda contributed to this report. 

An Afghan refugee caresses her 9-day-old infant inside the pediatric ward of a medical treatment facility in 2021 at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, N.J. Refugees are among the lawfully present noncitizens facing the loss of federally funded health care coverage. (Photo by Barbara Davidson/Pool/Getty Images)

An estimated 1.4 million immigrants who are in the country legally but are not citizens stand to lose their government-subsidized health care coverage under the sweeping tax and spending bill President Donald Trump signed into law this summer, according to estimates from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act cuts federal spending on Medicaid, the joint federal-state health insurance program for low-income people. It also places new eligibility restrictions on lawfully present immigrants, including refugees and asylees, who are enrolled in a variety of government-subsidized health programs: Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), Medicare and Affordable Care Act marketplaces.

Immigrants who are in the country illegally have long been ineligible for federally funded health coverage.

But seven states — California, Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota, New York, Oregon and Washington — plus the District of Columbia have extended state-funded coverage to some income-eligible noncitizen adults regardless of their immigration status. Fourteen states plus the district provide state-funded coverage to noncitizen children whether they are here legally or not.

The new restrictions in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, combined with other Trump policies limiting public benefits for immigrants, put those states in a financial bind. With less federal money to provide health benefits to immigrants who are here legally, states will be hard-pressed to maintain their programs that offer coverage to all immigrants, regardless of their legal status.

“We’re taking a giant step backwards from that public health and preventive health measure by excluding more people and draining federal resources from states that need it,” said Tanya Broder, a senior counsel specializing in immigrant health policy at the National Immigration Law Center, an advocacy group.

“And the result will be that our health — individually, as families and as communities — will be in jeopardy, and the health care infrastructure that serves all of us will also be compromised,” Broder said.

Already, some states that had offered health coverage aid to all immigrants — regardless of status — have been pulling back.

To help close a $12 billion deficit, California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom in June signed a state budget that bars immigrants who are here illegally from enrolling in the state’s Medicaid program, known as Medi-Cal. Current enrollees between the ages of 19 and 59 will have to pay a new $30 monthly premium beginning in 2027. In July 2026, the state will eliminate dental care for noncitizens.

Illinois in July ended its state-funded health coverage program for all immigrants ages 42 to 64. The state still operates a state-funded plan for residents 65 and older regardless of immigration status, but enrollment has been paused. And Minnesota also plans to exclude adult immigrants who are here illegally from a program that used to provide coverage regardless of immigration status.

New York is in an especially tough spot, since its state constitution prohibits discrimination against lawfully present immigrants in providing public benefits.

“States have had some type of leeway to fund resources for migrant communities if they want to,” said Medha Makhlouf, a law professor and the founding director of the Medical-Legal Partnership Clinic at Penn State Dickinson Law who studies immigrants’ access to health care. “But now this [federal] law makes it difficult for them to do that.”

Making it less attractive to stay

Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies at the Center for Immigration Studies, a nonprofit group that backs stricter immigration policies, said these efforts are part of both Trump’s larger anti-immigration stance and “Congress’ interest in getting rid of any incentive or benefit for people who are in the country illegally.”

“It’s a way of making it less attractive for people to stay here illegally, right?” Vaughan said. “They’re trying to give people reasons to leave rather than reasons to stay.”

As noncitizens who are here legally lose access to federally funded benefits, the demand for state-funded coverage is “likely to increase,” Drishti Pillai, director of immigrant health policy at KFF, a health policy research group, told Stateline.

“However, at the same time, states are facing increasing budget pressures, especially with the Medicaid cuts,” Pillai said. “So it’s almost a double whammy, where there will likely be increased demand for state-funded coverage programs, but also states will have fewer resources to cover people.”

Makhlouf said the Trump administration’s policy changes reflect a broader strategy of stripping public benefits from marginalized and poor communities.

“Everyone who cares about access to health care needs to pay attention to what’s happening to immigrants,” she said. “When it becomes normalized to be able to sacrifice certain people’s humanity or their vulnerability, or to minimize their contributions to society, and say, ‘You don’t deserve access to health care,’ then that can be turned on to any group.”

Under Trump’s domestic policy law, California expects to lose at least $28.4 billion in federal Medicaid funding, according to Newsom’s office.

On the California Senate floor June 27, Democratic state Sen. María Elena Durazo expressed her sorrow at the state’s decision to deny coverage to immigrants.

“I can’t express how much joy I felt when we expanded basic health care,” Durazo said. “Today, that joy that I was so happy about, that joy has turned into pain, that joy has turned into shame.”

Democratic Senate Pro Tem Mike McGuire, however, said the state had little choice.

“We are a state of immigrants, 10.6 million strong. And we will never turn our backs on those who are part of the heart of the largest economy in the United States of America,” McGuire said during the debate. “So we’ve had to make some tough decisions. I know we’re not going to please everyone.”

Obligated in New York

One state, New York, is particularly in a bind, because its constitution requires it to provide coverage to lawfully present noncitizens.

Roxana, 27, has been living in the U.S. under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, known as DACA, since she was 8 years old and is using her first name only out of fear she will be targeted. At the end of 2019, she experienced a range of debilitating symptoms, including pelvic pain and chronic fatigue, and discovered a noncancerous lump on her breast.

“Chronic illness has impacted my career trajectory with a lot of fatigue and chronic pain,” said Roxana, who lives in the Bronx, New York.

Roxana cannot get federally funded Medicaid. But she qualified for state-funded public health coverage in New York. A 2001 court case, Aliessa v. Novello, requires the state to offer publicly funded health coverage to all lawfully present residents under the state constitution. So, she could afford to go to the doctor, where she learned that she had a hormonal condition called polycystic ovary syndrome, or PCOS, and she was able to get the lump removed.

New York mostly picked up the tab for immigrants and other lawfully residing immigrants until 2016, when it launched coverage it called the Essential Plan under the 2010 Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. Under the ACA, the plan has no deductibles or monthly premiums for patients, and the federal government has picked up almost the entire cost — 90% — of the plan, a huge economic relief for the state.

Now, New York faces an annual loss of $13.5 billion in federal Medicaid and Affordable Care Act funds. Additionally, the phasing out of premium tax credits for noncitizens under Trump’s law would lead to a loss of $7.5 billion in annual funding to the state’s Essential Plan, which covers 1.7 million New Yorkers.

“These are billions of dollars that are being taken away and out of New York’s delivery system,” Amir Bassiri, director of Medicaid at the New York State Department of Health, said at a United Hospital Fund conference on July 30.

It’s unclear whether and how the state will afford to cover people like Roxana, even though it’s required under the state’s constitution. Like other immigrants, she is terrified that in the face of cuts and shrinking safety net access for noncitizens, she will lose continuous health care coverage and that her condition will get worse.

“My PCOS symptoms have just been getting worse over the years. I really want to try my best with the health access that I have to get it under control.”

Stateline reporter Shalina Chatlani can be reached at schatlani@stateline.org.

Hope Broussard, 20, sought care at a Planned Parenthood in Washington in 2023 when her IUD became lodged in her cervix and the clinics in her hometown of Sandpoint, Idaho, weren’t able to help. She now lives in Pullman, Washington. (Photo by Geoff Crimmins for States Newsroom)

Fifth in a five-part series. 

Hope Broussard’s intrauterine device should have brought relief from her severe periods. But at 17, it started causing debilitating pain.

At the Sandpoint, Idaho, clinic where the device was implanted, providers suspected it was embedded in her uterine wall, but lacked the ultrasound equipment to make a diagnosis.

Homeless with no insurance after her mother kicked her out, Broussard couldn’t enroll in Medicaid as a minor without a parent’s involvement. The women’s clinics in Sandpoint couldn’t help. Hospital bills were out of the question.

“The only people that were able to help me were Planned Parenthood,” Broussard said.

She sought care across the border in Washington, at the Spokane Planned Parenthood, where an ultrasound showed the IUD was coiled around her cervix. A specialist carefully removed it in a follow-up appointment and she paid $20 for everything because it was all she could afford.

“It really was my saving grace at the time,” said Broussard, who moved from Idaho to Pullman, Washington, in part because of that experience of being unable to access health care locally. “I have no idea what I would’ve done if I didn’t have that option available to me.”

Broussard is one of more than 2 million people nationwide who used Planned Parenthood for health care between 2023 and 2024, according to the national organization’s annual report. But how many people will be able to afford and access care is changing after a new federal provision prohibits some organizations that provide abortions from receiving Medicaid payments for at least a year. Nationally, Planned Parenthood estimates it could lose $700 million from Title X and Medicaid cuts, forcing affiliates to close some clinics, curtail services and stop accepting Medicaid patients.

Many Republican lawmakers and anti-abortion groups celebrated the provision passed by Congress in July that essentially targeted Planned Parenthood clinics nationwide for “defunding” because abortion care is part of clinical services in many states where access is mostly legal. Federal Medicaid dollars cannot be used to pay for abortions except in limited circumstances, and abortion care makes up a small percentage of overall care provided by clinics. Still, conservatives argue the mere association with any such clinics is equivalent to funding all abortion. 

“Planned Parenthood’s desperate ploy for our tax dollars only underscores why the One Big Beautiful Bill is such a historic win,” said Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America President Marjorie Dannenfelser in a July statement. “It halted, for the first time, over half a billion taxpayer dollars from propping up the corrupt abortion industry.”

Democratic-led states are in troubleshooting mode 

In response, elected officials in some Democratic-led states, including Washington, Hawaii, Colorado and Massachusetts have publicly pledged to backfill the funding needed to allow Planned Parenthood clinics to keep accepting Medicaid and other low-income patients. In July, Washington Gov. Bob Ferguson committed to filling the $11 million gap Planned Parenthood expected to see.

Many states don’t begin their legislative sessions until January, so some of the plans aren’t official yet and still need to make it through the legislative process or the details of allocation are still in progress. That means clinics either have to absorb the costs for now with the promise of reimbursement, or change their payment options and services for the time being. For example Hawaii is moving to sliding-scale fees for some Medicaid patients, and in Maine, a major independent clinic is making changes to its services. 

Idaho’s border with Washington and Oregon is a point of contention among lawmakers across state lines, where the political views could hardly be more polarized between the hard-line conservatives in Idaho and progressive politics in the other two states. But for the people who need abortion care, or even a basic ultrasound, like Broussard, clinics in places like Spokane and Ontario, Oregon, are some of the last options available. 

Oregon lawmakers are also brainstorming ways that the state can provide reimbursement to Planned Parenthood for lost funding. Clinics across the state billed Medicaid nearly $17 million for services in 2024, according to the Oregon Capital Chronicle. 

Courtney Normand, the Washington state director for Planned Parenthood Alliance Advocates, said this latest move from Congress is adding to challenges from the first Trump administration when there were other cuts, along with health care system pressures from the COVID-19 pandemic, and the impact of increasing patient volumes after the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision that upended federal abortion rights protections.

“It feels like the hits have just kept on coming in Washington, and that’s why access, affordability and stable funding is our key concern,” Normand said. 

Brita Lund, the health center manager at a Planned Parenthood in Seattle, worries about having to turn away patients if the federal Medicaid cuts and other strains on the health care system become too much to bear. She already feels like she spends too much time grilling a patient about their personal details at an appointment so the staff can find a way to get the treatment paid for by a specific pocket of funding. 

“Who is going to help these people if we’re not going to help them? I want someone to give me that answer,” Lund said. “It literally keeps me up at night.” 

While Washington state is known for being one of the most openly accessible for sexual and reproductive health, a budget crisis led legislators to cut 55% of the funding to the Abortion Access Project, about $8.5 million. Normand said it’s hard to know exactly why legislators made the decision, but some regretted it and are trying to find a solution for the upcoming session. Ferguson pledged to restore the funding as well. 

‘I know the state is supportive, it’s just about what their capacity is’

In Hawaii, Title X cuts from the Trump administration earlier this year amounted to about $2.1 million, said Jen Wilbur, Hawaii state director for Planned Parenthood Alliance Advocates. The state legislature acted quickly in April to approve a new $6 million family planning fund to offset that loss over the next two years, with $3 million specifically allocated to Planned Parenthood clinics. What the funding program will look like exactly is still to be determined, Wilbur said. The needs vary by island, and an assessment of what those needs are is underway.  

Hawaii has trended slightly more conservative than other blue states in recent elections, Wilbur said, but support from lawmakers still feels strong. She and other advocates are trying to game plan in the event that the federal government restricts access to mifepristone through the mail, which would severely affect access for the islands. 

But Wilbur worries about the long-term sustainability of the funding in a small state that already has many challenges with high cost of living, difficulty retaining providers and navigating the unknown. 

“We don’t even know how many more cuts are coming, so is any state really going to be able to sustain this going forward? I don’t know,” Wilbur said. “I know the state is supportive, it’s just about what their capacity is.” 

Short-term state fixes in Maine, Massachusetts 

New England, considered a hub for abortion access and low-cost reproductive health services, has been especially impacted by the federal Medicaid rule. It affects not only Planned Parenthood affiliates, but also two nonprofit health networks that offer wide-ranging health services primarily to Medicaid patients: Health Imperatives in Massachusetts and Maine Family Planning, which, like Planned Parenthood, has sued over the new policy. 

Maine’s legislature this summer appropriated about $6 million for family planning funding, to go to organizations like Planned Parenthood of Northern New England and Maine Family Planning, the largest reproductive health provider in the state with 18 clinics compared to Planned Parenthood’s four. But as Maine Morning Star reports, the temporary relief does not fully meet both organizations’ deficits, and Maine Family Planning this week announced it will end primary care services in Ellsworth, Houlton and Presque Isle at the end of October.

Still, both Maine Family Planning and Planned Parenthood of Northern New England say they will continue to see Medicaid patients free of charge for reproductive health and family planning services. 

Massachusetts Democratic Gov. Maura Healey also announced the state would deliver $2 million to Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, which is one of the co-plaintiffs in Planned Parenthood’s lawsuit against the federal government.

“We want the people of Massachusetts to know that if you need reproductive health care services, you should continue to seek this care,” Healey said in a news release. 

Massachusetts has been a leader in policy promoting access to reproductive health including abortions, which is legal in the state up to 24 weeks of pregnancy with exceptions for significant fetal abnormalities and the pregnant person’s health.  

But access to broad reproductive health care even in a city like Boston remains limited, especially for people living in poverty, said Dominique Lee, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts.

Lee told States Newsroom that making a primary care or OB-GYN appointment in the Boston area can mean having to wait 60 days, while Planned Parenthoods typically have same-day appointments. She noted that the communities with the least access to low-cost reproductive health services are concentrated in central and western Massachusetts, where Planned Parenthood has three clinics.

Lee said she is grateful for the $2 million in state funding, which she calls “short-term relief.” Because Medicaid funding represented about a quarter of her organization’s revenue, Lee said it is like a business losing its biggest customer. Her goal now is to figure out how the affiliate can sustain long term. She said they are brainstorming other revenue streams like offering vasectomies.

“We have gotten really good at contingency planning,” Lee said. “But it would be great to have a business model that is sustainable, that can withstand all of these attacks, and not have to worry about it. That would be a dream.”

The affiliate’s website notes that patients can no longer use their MassHealth or Medicaid Managed plans for care at Planned Parenthood clinics but says they are still seeing “all patients.”

Health Imperatives, which operates seven clinics in southern Massachusetts, is also looking at operations.

Health Imperatives CEO Julia Kehoe said the $19 million nonprofit serves about 23,000 people annually and offers social and psychiatric services to vulnerable populations. About 40% of what Health Imperatives does is offer low-cost sexual and reproductive health services for about 10,000 patients annually, Kehoe said. For now, they are continuing to see the same amount of patients and are working with the state government for funding help. 

But she said the organization is also looking at private funding because they are determined to continue seeing Massachusetts’ poorest residents, many of whom experience food insecurity in places like Nantucket, which is one of the nation’s wealthiest towns but where the main safety net for those who are not wealthy is a single Health Imperatives clinic. 

“I would never, ever make the decision to not see Medicaid patients,” Kehoe said. “We exist to provide services to people who fall through the cracks of mainstream systems of care. So we’re going to prioritize people who are on Medicaid or people who don’t have insurance. What I would do is, rather than further health disparities and wealth disparities in one of the most expensive states in the country, I would have fewer clinics.”

Correction: This article has been corrected to reflect that elected officials in Maine have not yet pledged to support family planning clinics with backfilled funding. The state passed a bill last session that provided family planning funding that was already needed before the congressional bill cut Medicaid funding.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York speaks to reporters at a press conference at the U.S. Capitol during the third day of a federal government shutdown, on Friday, Oct. 3, 2025. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — An agreement to reopen the federal government was nowhere in sight Friday after U.S. Senate Democrats and Republicans failed Friday, for the fourth time, to move on a deal and House Speaker Mike Johnson announced he won’t bring his members back until the middle of the month.

Two Senate votes to advance funding bills flopped, as expected, as Senate Democrats remained almost unanimous in demanding Republicans extend health care subsidies amid steep insurance premium increases. 

Republicans maintain they will not negotiate until the government reopens.

At the center of the argument are two separate government funding bills. One is a 91-page House-passed Republican bill that would keep the government open until Nov. 21.

The other is a 68-page Democrat counterproposal that aims to provide funding through October while restoring and permanently extending certain federal health funding and subsidies.

Republicans once again failed, 54-44, to gain enough Democratic support to reach the 60 votes needed — though Democratic Sens. Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada and John Fetterman of Pennsylvania joined the GOP, as did Maine’s Sen. Angus King, an independent. Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky voted no. 

The Democrats’ plan also fell short in a 46-52 vote.

“It’s always wrong to shut the government down,” Fetterman said outside the Senate chamber after voting yes on both bills. “Why do this s–t?” 

Sens. Chris Coons, a Delaware Democrat, and Jerry Moran, a Kansas Republican, did not vote on either bill.

The Senate will not return to work until Monday, when two more votes on the same bills are planned.

Johnson said after the votes that the House will stay in recess until Oct. 14, which means the government shutdown could last until at least then, if not longer, if Democrats in the Senate continue their resistance to the House bill.

Nonstop messaging

Republican and Democratic leaders spent another day on Capitol Hill hammering their shutdown messages. 

At a morning press conference in the middle of the Capitol’s grand Statuary Hall, Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune doubled down on their claim that Democrats are blocking government funding over a policy that Republicans say would provide health care to immigrants without legal status. 

“We challenge them to tell us why they’re not trying to give illegal aliens health care again when they put it in their own bill,” Johnson said, pointing to a poster of highlighted language from the Democrats’ proposal.

Democrats’ plan includes language reversing the GOP’s roughly $1 trillion in Medicaid cuts that President Donald Trump signed into law as part of a tax and spending cuts package on July 4. 

Johnson hailed a nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office finding in August that the new law would result in about 1.4 million immigrants losing health coverage. 

“That’s exactly what we promised, and that’s what’s gonna be achieved,” the Louisiana Republican said.

The populations slated to lose the coverage comprise lawfully present immigrants, including refugees and asylees, according to analysis by the nonprofit health policy research organization KFF. 

Longstanding federal policy prohibits immigrants without legal status in the U.S. from receiving government-funded health care. 

Health care premium hikes

At their own set of afternoon press conferences, Democratic leaders slammed what they described as a “Republican health care crisis.”

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries pointed to a poster showing health care premium increases for 2026 plans in Georgia, Idaho and Virginia.

“The crisis is having real impact on working-class Americans right now,” the New York Democrat said.

Jeffries questioned why Republicans extended numerous tax cuts in their July budget reconciliation law, otherwise known as the “one big beautiful bill,” but could not “be bothered” to extend the premium enhanced tax credits for people who buy health insurance on the Affordable Care Act marketplace.

“Republicans spent all year focused on their one big, ugly bill so they could permanently extend massive tax breaks for the wealthy,” Jeffries said.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer also came armed with a set of posters to his snap briefing after the funding bill failed yet again. 

One showed a PolitiFact graphic arrow pointing to “FALSE” under the question of whether Democrats were threatening a government shutdown over health care for immigrants without legal status.

“They thought they could bludgeon us and threaten us and scare us. It ain’t working, because my caucus and Democrats are adamant that we must protect the health care of the American people,” Schumer said.

Sen. Brian Schatz of Hawaii said of the news of the House members not returning next week: “There is not a clearer illustration of their lack of seriousness in terms of reopening the government and solving the health care crisis.”  

‘It shifts the authority to the executive’

Johnson dismissed the Democrats’ fight over health care as “a political talking point.”

When asked about the Trump administration’s threats to permanently lay off thousands of federal workers and cancel funding for projects in blue states, Johnson said “when Congress decides to turn off the lights, shut the government down, it shifts the authority to the executive.”

“The president takes no pleasure in this, but if Chuck Schumer is gonna give Donald Trump the opportunity to determine what the priorities are, he’s gonna exercise that opportunity, and that’s where we are,” Johnson said.

When pressed by a reporter about the memes the White House has posted online in recent days, Johnson responded, “what they’re trying to have fun with, trying to make light of, is the absurdity of the Democrats’ position.” 

On Tuesday the White House posted an AI deepfake video that depicted Jeffries in a sombrero and mustache as mariachi music played while Schumer talks in a fake voice about duping people who do not speak English. 

White House budget director Russ Vought, who is depicted as the Grim Reaper in a video posted by President Donald Trump during the shutdown in October 2025,  speaks with reporters inside the U.S. Capitol building on July 15, 2025. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — Trump administration officials on Friday defended the decision to cancel federal projects in regions of the country that have voted for Democrats, saying the move isn’t political but an effort to reduce the size and scope of government during the shutdown.

Republican leaders in Congress also backed the White House’s decision to punish Democratic voters by unilaterally canceling funding that lawmakers approved on a bipartisan basis. Democrats, however, said it’s an unacceptable escalation that further erodes Congress’ constitutional authority over spending.

“The president and (White House budget director) Russ Vought were not given any additional authority under a shutdown, and they shouldn’t pretend they have it and they shouldn’t act like it and they certainly should not be threatening people,” Senate Appropriations Committee ranking member Patty Murray, D-Wash., said on a call with reporters.

Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., gave a bit of a mixed message during a morning press conference, saying that while decisions about which projects to cancel are “tough,” President Donald Trump and other officials “are having fun with” the shutdown on social media.

“Are they taking great pleasure in that? No,” Johnson said, referring to the actual governing. “Is he trolling the Democrats? Yes, because that’s what President Trump does and people are having fun with this.”

Later in the day, Johnson opted to further delay bringing the House back into session, canceling a second week of floor votes, which means the earliest that chamber will return to Capitol Hill is Oct. 14. 

Shutdown ‘is not a joke’

Trump has posted frequently on social media during the shutdown, including a video that depicted House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries wearing a sombrero and a video that appeared to be created by artificial intelligence depicting Vought as the Grim Reaper.

Murray said on the call with reporters that Republicans posting the videos show they are treating the shutdown “as a joke.” 

“This is not a joke. This is real,” Murray said. “They need to stop the taunting. They need to stop the childish behavior. They need to stop hurting people and they need to come and work with us to solve a serious problem in front of our country.”

Jeffries, asked about the social media videos during a press conference, said it shows Republicans are on “defense” over their policies on health care and other issues. 

“Donald Trump has behaved in a deeply unserious and deeply unhinged manner and it’s evidence of the fact that Republicans have a weak argument, so they’ve resorted to deepfake videos and to lying about the nature of the policy decisions,” Jeffries said.

Projects axed in Chicago, New York, blue states

Johnson said he spoke earlier this week with Vought — one of the authors of Project 2025 who said previously he wanted “bureaucrats to be traumatically affected” — and that Vought “takes no pleasure in this.”

“Russ wants to see a smaller, more efficient, more lean, effective federal government, as we do. But he doesn’t want people to lose jobs. He doesn’t want to do that,” Johnson said. “But that’s his responsibility. So he’s very carefully, methodically, very deliberately looking through that to see which decisions can be made in the best interest of the American people. That’s his obligation and that’s his real desire.”

Typically during a government shutdown, federal employees are categorized as exempt, meaning they keep working without pay, or are placed on furlough. Both categories receive back pay once Congress votes to approve a stopgap spending bill.

But Vought has indicated he wants to use the shutdown as an excuse to lay off federal workers en masse, a step not taken during past funding lapses. He’s also taken to social media several times to announce canceled or halted projects in areas of the country that don’t regularly vote for Republicans.

Vought wrote in a post on Wednesday, shortly after the shutdown began, that $18 billion in Transportation Department funding for the Hudson Tunnel Project and the Second Ave Subway in New York City was put “on hold.” Both are in Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer and Jeffries’ home state.

Vought then said the Energy Department would cancel $8 billion in climate funding that was slated to go to projects in California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont and Washington.

The Washington State Standard reported some of the funding would have gone toward the Pacific Northwest Hydrogen Hub and Source New Mexico posted an article detailing a few impacted projects, including funds to the “New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology for the third phase of a project … to develop a storage hub at a commercial scale within (the) San Juan basin.”

Additionally, Vought on Friday froze $2.1 billion in Transportation Department funding for the “Red Line Extension and the Red and Purple Modernization Project” in Chicago, writing it was “put on hold to ensure funding is not flowing via race-based contracting.”

Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin represents Illinois, and the state’s governor, JB Pritzker, has been in a public back-and-forth with Trump over immigration enforcement, which the administration has heightened in Chicago. Pritzker has repeatedly rebuffed Trump’s requests to bring in the National Guard.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said during the press conference with Speaker Johnson that it makes sense the Trump administration would implement the shutdown through a political lens.

“I think they’re going to make decisions that are consistent with their priorities,” Thune said. “And yes, they’re going to have a different political view of the world than the Democrats might have.”

Hatch Act questions

The actions of Trump administration officials have raised questions about whether they could be in violation of the Hatch Act, a 1939 law that “limits certain political activities of federal employees.” 

The Office of Special Counsel writes on its website the law is meant to “ensure that federal programs are administered in a nonpartisan fashion, to protect federal employees from political coercion in the workplace, and to ensure that federal employees are advanced based on merit and not based on political affiliation.”

Any federal employee found to have violated the law can face removal from service or a fine of up to $1,000, among other possible repercussions. 

Public Citizen has filed numerous complaints against the Trump administration, alleging that banners and messages posted on government websites about the shutdown violate the Hatch Act. 

“Even for an administration that flouts ethics guidelines regularly, these messages are a particularly egregious and clear-cut sign that Trump and his cabinet see themselves as above the law,” Craig Holman, a government ethics expert with Public Citizen, wrote in a statement. 

As with many of the Trump administration’s actions, any new precedent set by the Republican administration could be used by a future Democratic president in a way that would very likely be harmful to Republican voters and regions of the country that consistently support GOP policies.

Layoffs still threatened

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said during an afternoon briefing that administration officials are trying to determine where to make additional spending cuts and layoffs during the shutdown. 

“The Office of Management and Budget is in constant communication and contact right now with our Cabinet secretaries and agencies across the board to identify, unfortunately, where layoffs have to be made and where cuts have to happen,” Leavitt said. “But again, the Democrats have an opportunity to prevent this if they vote to reopen the government.”

Leavitt declined to say whether the administration would back away from plans to lay off federal workers by the thousands or cancel funding for projects in Democratic areas if Republicans and Democrats in Congress strike a deal to reopen government. 

Leavitt said the “blueprint” for shrinking the size and scope of the federal government is whatever the president and administration officials come up with, after being asked by a Fox News reporter about Trump writing in a social media post earlier this week that Vought was “of PROJECT 2025 Fame,” after the president repeatedly distanced himself from the document on the campaign trail.