Senate Parliamentarian Tells Republicans They Can’t Do Their Big Food Benefit Cut

WASHINGTON ― A decision by the Senate’s rules referee will likely force Republicans to drop a major part of their so-called Big Beautiful Bill.

Democrats announced late Friday night the Senate parliamentarian ruled that a provision requiring states to share the cost of federal food benefits cannot stay in the bill under the fast-track legislative procedures Republicans are using.

It’s a significant setback. The proposal represented not only a major structural change to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, but also a decent chunk of savings that helped offset the cost of the bill’s tax cuts for the rich.

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), the top Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee, trumpeted the ruling, which resulted from Democrats making their case to the parliamentarian in closed-door meetings.

“As much as Senate Republicans would prefer to throw out the rule book and advance their conservative families lose and billionaires win agenda, this process has rules and Democrats are making sure those rules are enforced,” Merkley said. “We will be fighting this bill every single day until Republicans bring it to the floor.”

The House version of the bill required states to pay at least 5% of the $100 billion annual cost of SNAP benefits, which go out monthly to more than 20 million households. Forcing states to cover benefit costs would have given them a strong incentive to kick people off the program.

The Congressional Budget Office said the proposal would save $128 billion over a decade. The Senate version only mandated SNAP cost-sharing in states with high rates of erroneous SNAP payments, likely saving less.

Both the House and Senate versions of the bill still have stricter “work requirements” for SNAP users without disabilities and limits on increases in future benefit amounts.

Republicans are using a legislative process called “budget reconciliation” allowing them to move the Big Beautiful Bill through the Senate with a simple majority vote instead of having to get the usual 60 votes. Under the so-called Byrd Rule, provisions deemed “extraneous” are still subject to the 60-vote threshold, and that’s what apparently happened to the SNAP cost-sharing proposal, likely because its savings were incidental to its non-budgetary mandate on state governments.

Merkley’s office said another controversial provision suspected of having a Byrd Rule problem ― a ban on states regulating artificial intelligence ― is still under review.