19
The current iteration of the Farm Bill, an omnibus package of legislation dealing with agricultural production and nutrition programs, will expire in 19 days. The September 30 deadline looms large in the United States Senate, where the Agriculture Committee’s latest draft failed to move forward last month prior to a scheduled Congressional recess.
The largest expenditure in the Farm Bill, which last passed in 2018, and the primary point of contention is Title IV, which deals with nutrition programs. Making up 76% of total Farm Bill costs, nutrition programs include Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which offers additional nutrition support for families who meet certain income criteria. About 40 million Americans receive SNAP benefits. Children account for about 4 out of 10 SNAP recipients. SNAP benefits bolster local economies and food systems, as well, generating approximately $1.50 in local economic activity for every dollar invested. In Nebraska, in federal fiscal year 2024, 155,000 individuals received SNAP benefits, or 1 in 13 Nebraskans.
The impasse over SNAP is largely rooted in changes made to the program by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (H.R. 1) which implemented cost sharing programs between states and the federal government for the first time in the program’s history. Proposals to delay these cost sharing programs and allow flexibility in calculating the error rate that determines the state’s share of benefit costs have been the line in the sand preventing the Bill from advancing from committee.
Since the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act , Nebraska’s SNAP participation rate has declined by 22%. Relatively steady unemployment rates in the state make it very unlikely that reduced need for support is driving the decrease in SNAP participation. Nebraska’s Department of Health and Human Services reporting has shown longer wait times and higher error rates for processing SNAP applications in recent months.
47%
According to KFF, a nonprofit health care policy think tank, nearly half of births in rural areas of the United States were financed by Medicaid in 2023, the most recent year for which data was available. Of those, 96% took place in a hospital setting, and delivery is the most common reason for an inpatient hospital stay. KFF noted that in 2023, about half of rural counties did not have a hospital offering obstetrics services. Significant concerns about the financial stability of rural providers and obstetric services have arisen since the passage of widespread Medicaid cuts in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (H.R. 1) in 2025. Already-low Medicaid reimbursement rates and struggles with provider availability are persistent challenges for rural obstetrics departments, which have closed in significant numbers in recent years. From 2010 to 2022, KFF found that 238 rural hospitals nationwide closed obstetrics units, while only 26 opened new ones.
According to the Nebraska Perinatal Quality Improvement Collaborative, Nebraska is one of the states with the highest percentage of maternity care deserts, with 51% of counties lacking adequate access to obstetric services. Since 2017, 10 birthing facilities in the state have ceased providing maternity care. KFF has indicated that the average drive time for an inpatient hospital offering maternity services to Medicaid patients in Nebraska is approximately 38 minutes. The closure of rural hospitals or obstetrics departments could increase that number, which could increase the risk of poor health outcomes for both mothers and babies.
$166 billion
After the Supreme Court of the United States declared that tariffs were unconstitutionally implemented under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, American corporations who had already paid these tariffs were due $166 billion in refunds. According to recent analysis by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), the odds of those refunds reaching the customers who absorbed the costs via higher prices are murky at best. The Yale Budget Lab estimates that the tariff policy is raising each American household’s cost by approximately $1,100 per year.
ITEP lists 11 corporations who will receive more than $500 million in tariff refunds, the largest of which is a $2.9 billion sum payable to WalMart. Nike, which will receive about $986 million in refunds, announced at an earnings call in 2025 that they planned to absorb the additional tariff expense by increasing prices by $5-10 on select footwear and apparel. However, when the sizable refund was announced, Nike made no indication that they would return pricing to pre-tariff levels and instead announced that it would boost company earnings for the quarter. In other words, Nike shareholders stand to benefit while Nike customers continue to see price increases. This has resulted in a class-action lawsuit against the company by customers demanding it pass the refunds along.
A public list of companies receiving tariff refunds is not available, but the small business coalition We Pay the Tariffs estimates that Nebraska importers paid $663 million in tariffs between March 2025 and July 2026.
