Congress’ ‘Beautiful’ Bill Unleashes a Cascade of Harmful Changes upon Kansas Families
By Emily Barnes, Heather Braum, Dustin Hare, and Nathan Kessler | July 11, 2025
After months of back and forth, the “beautiful” congressional reconciliation budget bill passed on razor thin margins and was signed by President Trump on July 4. A massive wave of policy changes in the bill will negatively impact Kansas kids, families, low-income workers, people living with disabilities, the elderly, immigrants, and others. Here’s what’s in the final version of the bill, from tax cuts and budget cuts to punitive rules and expanding immigration enforcement authority.
Jump to:
- Tax Cuts
- SNAP
- Medicaid
- Other Health Provisions
- Energy
-
Education
- Immigration
- U.S. Debt
- State Impact
- Conclusion
View the text of the “One Big, Beautiful Bill” here.
Costly Tax Cuts
At the core of the legislation is the permanent extension of tax cuts enacted through the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) in 2017. However, several provisions are temporary and will expire over the next four or so years.
Temporary Tax Cuts
Much of what passed in the Senate’s version of the reconciliation bill stayed the same, though there were some notable differences. To win over key House Republicans, the Senate agreed to raise the deduction cap for state and local taxes (SALT) – at least temporarily.
Beginning in tax year 2025, taxpayers with less than $500,000 in annual income can deduct up to $40,000 in state and local taxes. While this dollar amount was in keeping with the U.S. House’s original position, the cap will revert to the TCJA level of $10,000 after tax year 2029 if left unaddressed. The temporary nature of this enhancement reflects reality for many of the new tax cuts in the bill. (Pg. 251, (ii)(I); Pg. 250 (7)(A)(6)(i); Pg. 250 (7)(A)(6)(iv))
Three key campaign promises made by President Trump – no taxes on tips, overtime, or Social Security – received an honorable mention in the form of temporary deductions. Through tax year 2028, seniors can now take an additional $6,000 deduction. While much has been discussed about exempting Social Security income entirely, any changes to the program cannot be made through the reconciliation process, so tax-exempt Social Security income was not able to be included in this bill. (Pg. 222, (3)(C)(i))
Also through tax year 2028, tipped workers can deduct up to $25,000 in tipped income, while those with overtime can deduct up to $12,500 ($25,000 in the case of married filing jointly). The amount that can be deducted begins to phase out when annual income exceeds $150,000. (Pg. 253, (b)(1); Pg. 253, (A);Pg. 263, (b)(1) and (A))
While not inherently bad, these provisions are unlikely to have a substantial impact on the national economy because the pool of people able to take advantage of them is expected to be very small.
Other temporary provisions include a tax deduction for auto loan interest, a handful of business deductions, and a baby bonds pilot program. The latter is a feature of the introduction of Trump Accounts wherein children born between January 1, 2025, and December 31, 2028, will receive a $1,000 deposit into an account to be invested into the stock market. At the end of the pilot program, Trump accounts will stick around, but funding them will be the sole responsibility of parents or legal guardians. (Pg. 298, (a))
Permanent Tax Cuts
Key among the permanent cuts are an increase to the standard deduction, a $1 million increase in the estate tax exemption, and an annual $200 increase in the federal child tax credit (CTC). While very few people are wealthy enough to benefit from the increased estate tax exemption, the larger CTC will come as welcome news to millions of households. Unfortunately, new eligibility criteria mean that more than 2.6 million children, including nearly 25,000 in Kansas alone, will lose access to this credit altogether. This is in addition to the 171,000 children who already won’t receive the full credit because their parents don’t make enough money.
This bill also expands the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit (CDCTC), which helps working parents address child care costs. Parents can use the CDCTC to claim a portion of their child care expenses on their tax returns and reduce their total liability.
While the total amount that can be claimed remains unchanged at a maximum of $3,000 for one child or $6,000 for two or more children, families with the lowest incomes can now receive up to 50% of their claimed child care expenses compared to 35% previously. This percentage decreases as incomes rise, but households earning less than $150,000 could see up to $900 more from this credit than last year. (Pg. 373, Sec. 70405 (a)(2))
Kansas doubled the state match of the federal CDCTC in 2024, allowing families to claim 50% of the federal credit on their state taxes. This means taxpayers will be able to receive a larger state credit based on the changes at the federal level. However, the non-refundable nature of the credit means many families may not fully feel the impact of this change.
Businesses and corporations are set to benefit from the expansion of the Employer-Provided Child Care Credit, otherwise referred to as 45F. When businesses help provide child care for their employees, they can receive a tax credit for their expenses. This bill substantially expands this credit.
Previously, employers could claim 25% of eligible expenses, up to $150,000. This bill makes it so that large businesses can now claim 40% while eligible small businesses can claim 50% of their expenses, with new maximum credit amounts of $500,000 and $600,000, respectively. Small businesses will also now be allowed to pool funds to contract with a qualified child care provider, which was not possible before. (Pg. 368, Sec. 70401 (a) - (b)(2))
Employees at businesses who provide Dependent Care Assistance Plans (DCAP) can now set aside more pre-tax earnings per year in an employee’s flexible spending account (FSA). Since 1986, employees at companies offering DCAP could set aside up to $5,000 per year in an FSA to use toward dependent care expenses. They can now deduct $7,500 per year from their earnings. (Pg. 373, Sec. 70404 (a))
Fiscal Impact
These significant cuts for the highest earners come at a considerable financial cost for the nation. Despite claims to the contrary, the centerpiece of this bill – the permanent extension of the TCJA tax cuts – will cost approximately $3.8 trillion over 10 years. Altogether, the new tax cuts and higher spending on the military, immigration enforcement, and other priorities will cost the federal government approximately another $1 trillion over 10 years.
To put it simply, this bill is the most expensive piece of legislation in U.S. history with an expected price tag of more than $4 trillion even after the offsets via massive cuts to Medicaid and SNAP.
Paying for the Bill
SNAP Provisions: $178 Billion over 10 Years
State Cost-Share
Throughout the history of SNAP, the benefits going to low-income individuals have been fully funded by the federal government. This bill will change that, shifting some of the costs to the states for the first time ever beginning in FY 2028.
The state’s share will be based on a metric called the “SNAP payment error rate.” States with error rates above 10% will be required to pay the highest tier of 15% of the cost; states with error rates between 8% - 10% will have 10% of SNAP costs shifted to them; states with error rates between 6% - 8% will have 5% of the cost shifted to them; and states with error rates below 6% will not have any of the cost shifted to them. (Sec. 10105 - (B) (i) (1-4))
Most states, including Kansas, had SNAP payment error rates of more than 10% in 2023. In 2024, the Kansas error rate dropped to 9.98%, putting us in the second tier. If Kansas remains in this tier into 2026, state lawmakers will be required to find $41 million (10% of the $413 million in total SNAP dollars Kansas receives) in the FY 2028 budget to fund the state’s portion of SNAP benefits. If our error rate increases even a fraction of a percent, it would topple us back into the highest tier and increase our share to $62 million. If lawmakers are unable or unwilling to pay our share, Kansas would functionally be opting out of the SNAP program, and 187,000 Kansans would lose all their food assistance. This would be devastating to struggling Kansas families.
Another cost-sharing provision will cost the state an additional $15 million. States are already required to put up a 50% match for the administrative costs associated with SNAP. Our current share of the match is about $30 million. This bill increases the state share to 75%, which means our share will increase to $45 million. (Page 26, Sec. 10106)
Work Reporting Requirements
The bill extends work reporting requirements to a handful of new populations, requiring them to work at least 80 hours per month and fill out paperwork on a monthly basis to prove they’re working.
The bill will now force several new populations to adhere to work reporting requirements:
- Adults with children age 14 and up;
- People between the age of 55 and 64 who were previously exempt from work reporting requirements; and
- Veterans, people experiencing homelessness, and 18- to 24-year-olds who are aging out of the foster system.
Decades of research shows that work reporting requirements do not lead to increased employment or self-sufficiency. Instead, they kick people off these much-needed programs at alarming rates. The people who are going to lose their benefits are those who need assistance the most – namely people struggling with disabilities and chronic illness, as well as the family members who need to stay home to take care of them.
In fact, most people who are able to work are already doing so, but now they’ll have to deal with a new layer of bureaucracy. And just one tiny slipup could mean the difference between being able to buy groceries or going hungry.
Excluding Refugees and Asylees
Historically, refugees and asylum seekers have been eligible for SNAP benefits. Under this bill, the only non-citizen immigrants who are eligible to access food assistance are green card holders, people granted Cuban or Haitian entrant status, and people residing under a Compact of Free Association (which includes just three small Pacific Islands). All other legal immigrants are banned from SNAP.
This includes several categories of the most vulnerable immigrants who have legal status in the United States, such as refugees and asylum seekers, trafficking survivors, and victims of domestic violence, who have previously been eligible for SNAP but will now lose their food assistance. These same populations are also newly excluded from Medicaid (see below).
Thrifty Food Plan
The Thrifty Food Plan represents the cost to purchase groceries based on the nutritional needs of an average person consuming a healthy, cost-conscious diet at home.
This bill changes the formula so that increases in SNAP payments are tied only to the Consumer Price Index and not to the cost of an actual basket of groceries. This means every single SNAP recipient will see their benefits cover less food every year, adding up to $37 billion in cuts over the next decade.
Medicaid Provisions: $1 Trillion over 10 Years
With such a massive loss of funding — amounting to the largest single cut in Medicaid’s 60-year history — provisions are vast and complex. KFF, Families USA, and Georgetown CFF have published comprehensive summaries of all the health provisions.
Several provisions apply to Kansas, but many others only apply to Medicaid expansion states.
Provisions Applying to Kansas
Freezing Provider Taxes
Kansas and other non-expansion states will see current provider taxes frozen beginning October 1, 2026. No additional provider taxes will be allowed in the future. Provider taxes — in use for more than 30 years — allow states in certain circumstances to place taxes on health providers (including hospitals) to partially fund a state’s share of Medicaid spending and draw down additional federal dollars.
State-Directed Payments
States previously had the option to direct managed care organizations (MCOs) to pay providers according to specific rates or methods, to help close the gap between Medicaid rates and the average commercial rate. State-directed payments in certain situations filled this gap, and particularly help hospitals. Effective immediately, non-expansion states must cap any new state-directed payments at 110 percent of the Medicare rate for inpatient and nursing facility services. Any state directed payments already in place by May 1, 2025 (Kansas has several), will be considered grandfathered. But beginning on January 1, 2028, non-expansion states will need to reduce these rates by 10 percent each year until they reach 110% of the Medicare rate. (Page 618, Sec. 71116 (a) (2))
Rural Hospital Transformation Program
At the final moments before the Senate passed this bill, an amendment was added that increases a rural hospital fund to $50 billion. Called the Rural Health Transformation Program, the bill annually appropriates $10 billion to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to be divvied up among applying states through FY 2030. How this provision will be implemented and who will receive it remains to be seen. (Page 684, Sec. 71401 (a) (1) (A))
Sunset of Enhanced Rate for Expanding Medicaid
For several years, Kansas could have received an enhanced federal payment if the state chose to expand Medicaid. That projected enhanced funding was used the last several years in the different proposals to expand Medicaid. This bill sunsets that provision from being available to non-expansion states January 1, 2026.
Enrollment and Eligibility Protections Delayed
Numerous parts of the eligibility and enrollment rule will be delayed until 2034. Finalized in 2024, this complex federal rule removed longstanding system barriers that kids, people with disabilities, pregnant women, and others face when navigating enrollment and renewal processes.
However, in some good news, several pieces of the rule that were already in effect were left out of the final bill — including eliminating CHIP lockout and waiting periods and eliminating annual and lifetime caps for CHIP coverage. These are important provisions to help kids keep their CHIP coverage and better align its provisions with Medicaid’s.
Additional Enrollee Eligibility Check Requirements Coming
Over the next several years, the bill requires states to add additional data matching systems, with different implementation dates for certain provisions related to addresses, multiple enrollments across multiple states, and deceased individuals.
Retroactive Coverage Reduced
Under prior law, Medicaid recipients were allowed a retroactive coverage period of 90 days for previous medical bills when enrolling in Medicaid. This was particularly important for people facing serious health challenges and then learning they were eligible for Medicaid after first seeking treatment. In non-expansion states, this lookback period will only be 60 days. This provision goes into effect on December 31, 2026.
ACA Marketplace Restrictions and Changes
Several restrictions and additional verification processes will be required for those enrolling in ACA marketplace coverage, resulting in prohibiting passive and automatic enrollment and re-enrollment. Those who enroll during special enrollment periods will no longer be able to access premium tax credits, beginning December 31, 2025.
Additionally, those who underestimate their current income will no longer have limits on the amount of premium tax credit they must pay back. Finally, a federal rule applying to the federal marketplace goes into effect August 25, 2025, adding a multitude of additional restrictions, like eliminating DACA eligibility for the ACA marketplace and special enrollment periods for low-income populations.
Provisions Applying to Medicaid Expansion States – Especially the Medicaid Expansion Population
Work Reporting Requirements
For the very first time in Medicaid’s history, all expansion states will be required to implement a work requirement (what the bill calls “community engagement”) to receive federal funding for their state’s Medicaid program.
The work reporting requirements require 80 hours per month for the Medicaid expansion population, with a few exceptions. Noncompliance results in disenrollment. Parents of children age 14 and older are not exempt from these provisions. States cannot waive this requirement.
Those who are disenrolled for failing to meet the work requirement who are also eligible for the ACA Marketplace will not be eligible for premium tax credits.
Expansion states must implement this requirement by December 31, 2026.
Frequent Eligibility Checks
Medicaid expansion enrollees will now be subject to eligibility reviews at least every six months compared to 12 months under prior law. States will be required to implement this provision by December 31, 2026.
Provider Tax Reduction
For expansion states or local governments in expansion states, beginning October 1, 2026, states must begin to reduce their provider tax rates by 0.5% each year until they reach 3.5% by October 1, 2032. No new provider taxes will be allowed in the future. (Page 613, Sec. 71115)
State-Directed Payments
For expansion states, the cap on state-directed payments will be 100 percent of the Medicare rate for inpatient and nursing facility services. Beginning on January 1, 2028, grandfathered rates in expansion states will be gradually reduced to 100 percent of Medicare rates.
Retroactive Coverage Reduced
Under prior law, Medicaid recipients were allowed a retroactive coverage period of 90 days for previous medical bills when enrolling in Medicaid. This was particularly important for people facing serious health challenges and then learning they were eligible for Medicaid. Now, for the Medicaid expansion population, this lookback period will only be 30 days.
Other Health-Related Provisions
Immigration
As with SNAP, refugees and asylum seekers have been eligible for Medicaid or CHIP benefits. Under this bill, however, the only non-citizen immigrants who are eligible to access Medicaid are green card holders, people granted Cuban or Haitian entrant status, and people residing under a Compact of Free Association (which includes just three small Pacific Islands). These populations can only become eligible after a five-year waiting period. This will take effect October 1, 2026.
States may continue to cover lawfully residing immigrant kids and pregnant women (which is optional). But immigrants who are refugees, asylees, survivors of violence, Iraq/Afghan special immigrant visa, and others who fall into specific categories will no longer be eligible for Medicaid.
Even further, after December 31, 2026, only lawful permanent residents, Cuban and Haitian entrants, and people residing under a Compact of Free Association will be allowed to access premium tax credits via the ACA Marketplace.
Again, this means that refugees, asylees, survivors of violence, Iraq/Afghan special immigrant visa, and others will no longer be eligible for premium tax credits on the Marketplace.
Effective immediately, there will be limitations for Medicare coverage to certain immigrant populations, and there will be decreased federal funding for immigrants receiving emergency care but who are ineligible for the Medicaid expansion category due to immigration status.
No Extension of Enhanced ACA Marketplace Premium Tax Credits
On December 31, 2025, the enhanced premium tax credits in place the last several years will expire. This will undoubtedly increase premium costs for millions obtaining health insurance coverage on the ACA Marketplace. People may also choose to drop their coverage if they no longer can afford their new premiums, and likely no other insurance option will be available to them.
KFF offers two examples of what this increase could mean for families in different parts of the country.
“For example, two 40-year-old parents with two 10-year-old children in Davis, West Virginia, making $125,000 would go from paying $885 to $2,918 per month, an increase of $2,033 ($24,392 per year). A 30-year-old in Dallas, Texas making just over poverty would go from paying $0 to $24 per month (and increase of $291 per year).”
KFF provides a calculator to figure out how much marketplace premiums might increase for different family situations if these enhanced credits expire.
Energy Provisions
One of the most glaring examples of stealing from the future is the elimination of the renewable energy tax credits created as part of the Inflation Reduction Act. This provision, which only covers $246 billion of the $4.5 trillion in tax cuts, will stifle investment in solar and wind energy at a time of rapidly increasing energy demand.
As this demand for energy outpaces growth in fossil fuel production, Kansans will see their electric bills go up in the coming years. An analysis by Energy Innovation estimates that household spending on energy would increase by an average of $210 per year in 2030 and more than $670 per year in 2035.
The impact of failing to invest in critical energy infrastructure won’t be limited to higher electric bills. The same report estimates that the elimination of these tax credits will reduce state gross domestic product (GDP) by $11 billion from just 2025 to 2034 and cost Kansas approximately 10,000 jobs in 2030 compared to policy under the Inflation Reduction Act.
As more data centers are built, more electric vehicles hit the road, and the U.S. population grows, the grid is going to come under enormous pressure in the years ahead, absent substantial investment in new energy sources.
With our abundance of land and wind, Kansas is aw prime candidate for building the energy infrastructure of the future. But without these tax credits, projects will be cancelled or never set in motion. Investment will go to the largest producers of fossil fuels, such as Texas, New Mexico, and Pennsylvania. And ultimately, Kansas consumers will remain at the mercy of global oil prices as the U.S. fails to move toward true energy independence.
Education Provisions
As noted in the Tax Provision section previously, parents with children in early childhood and child care programs stand to feel some tax relief.
K-12 Education
The reconciliation bill starts the Scholarship Tax Credit, for which donors will receive a dollar-for-dollar tax credit for their charitable donations to Scholarship Granting Organizations (SGOs), up to $1,700 per taxpayer. An SGO is a nonprofit charitable organization that receives donations from businesses, corporations, foundations, and individuals then uses those funds in the form of a scholarship. This helps eligible students attend private schools of their choice. Students receiving funds from SGOs use it for expenses like private school tuition, books, and homeschooling costs. (Page 375, Sec. 70411 - Sec. 25F - (b) (1))
The bill allows taxpayers to receive up to $5 billion in credits each year until 2029.
The scholarships will be available to families earning up to 300% of their region’s median income, making this a nearly universal program. This federal voucher-like system essentially shifts billions in tax dollars toward private institutions, which are not required to accept all students or have the same accountability as public schools.
Post-secondary Education
College students will be directly impacted in how they access and repay student loans.
Student loan limits set lifetime caps on both students and parents. But while the bill claims to simplify repayment plans, streamline deferments, and limit forbearances, changes to Pell Grant eligibility and creation of the Workforce Pell Grant may impact access to those who need it while juggling school and part-time employment.
One of the most concerning student loan changes is the prohibition of federal student loans for college programs with “low-earning outcomes.” Institutions won’t be able to administer funds for those enrolling in undergraduate programs for which those graduates earn less than the median income of a “working adult” as determined by the Bureau of Census. A working adult is defined as a person aged 25-34, not enrolled in higher education, who has only a high school diploma or equivalent (baccalaureate degree in the case of graduate program loans).
Many of these student loan provisions become effective July 1, 2026, meaning that the upcoming school year’s senior class may see changes to their ability to access student loans as they finish high school.
Immigration
As outlined in other sections of this explainer, lawful immigrants will lose access to important economic security programs such as SNAP, Medicaid, and the child tax credit. But this bill also provides $170 billion in new funding to build the infrastructure for a deportation and detention regime.
About $45 billion of that funding will be dedicated for building new immigration detention centers, including family detention centers where children can be held indefinitely. This funding represents a 308% increase in Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) annual detention budget, putting it higher than the entire budget for the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP). The overwhelming majority of that budget will go to private companies, such as CoreCivic, to build and run detention facilities. (Page 773, Sec. 90003 (a))
Around $3.5 billion in funding will be provided for state and local law enforcement agencies to scale up immigration enforcement operations. This is something the Kansas Bureau of Investigation has stated they’re currently ramping up to help with, and this funding would allow them to expand those operations in addition to what ICE is already doing. (Page 856, Sec. 100053)
And $30 billion will go toward training and hiring new officers for ICE. While this was the purpose specified in the version of the bill that originally passed the House, the final bill allows a lot of flexibility in how the money is spent. Allowable uses include family detention, building and upgrading detention facilities, and providing additional funding for state and local law enforcement to help with immigration enforcement. (Page 851, Sec. 100052)
The other big expense is $46.6 billion toward the construction of a border wall, but there are many other smaller expenses that are just as troubling, especially as it relates to children. Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) will be authorized to turn away unaccompanied children attempting to cross into the country and send them back the country they fled unsupervised.
Government agents will be authorized to examine the bodies of unaccompanied children for tattoos or markings. (Page 771, Sec. 90002)
There are also numerous new punitive fees designed to make it difficult for asylum seekers and others to seek refuge in the United States. For example, it will now cost $100 to apply for asylum and $500 to apply for Temporary Protected Status (TPS), and asylum seekers who do not enter through official ports of entry will be charged $5,000. (Page 787, Sec. 100002 (b))
U.S. Debt
Despite extensive cuts to Medicaid, SNAP, and energy investment, this bill adds more than $4 trillion to the national debt over 10 years. With debt already around 124% of GDP, this bill takes the country in the wrong direction and will negatively impact consumers through higher interest rates in the long term.
Adding this much money to the national debt will drive up interest rates in two ways, and the first is by reducing the amount of money available for lending to consumers. The United States adds to the debt by selling Treasury bonds, which are viewed as the safest possible investment. Large financial institutions are among the major purchasers of these bonds, and when they buy the bonds, they have less money to lend to consumers for cars, houses, and other big-ticket items. Because of this, the lenders will demand higher interest rates as consumers compete for a smaller pool of money.
This imbalance is a short- to medium-term issue, however, and the longer-term problem is all about uncertainty. As the U.S. debt rises in a high-interest rate environment, servicing that debt becomes more expensive and fuels uncertainty about the government’s ability to repay the money it borrows.
As a result, those investors who buy Treasury bonds demand higher returns on their investment, which drives up the “yield” on those bonds. A bond yield is essentially the interest rate paid to the buyer, and the interest rates paid by consumers are heavily influenced by Treasury bond yields. Essentially, when the government’s interest rate goes up because its debt is a risky investment, so does the interest rate consumers pay.
Interest payments are already the third largest government expense, behind Social Security and Medicare. As Congress saddles future generations of Americans with even more debt through this bill, the federal government will be less able to invest in the most valuable resource in our country: children.
State Impact
Generally speaking, as with the TCJA, most people are likely to see a tax cut from this bill. However, also as with the TCJA, the benefits are going to be heavily concentrated in the top 20% of earners – those making more than $143,000 in Kansas.
According to an analysis by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, 68% of the benefits in this bill will go to the top 20% of earners, with most of that going to the top 5% alone. Earners making more than $760,600 in Kansas will, on average, receive a tax cut of more than $57,000. Cuts for the bottom 80% pale in comparison; in fact, earners in the bottom 20% can expect a slight increase in their taxes from this legislation in part because of cuts to SNAP and Medicaid and changes to CTC eligibility criteria.
Thousands of Kansans will feel the brunt of this bill on health care access too, unfortunately. An estimated 75,000 Kansans will lose health insurance coverage over the next 10 years.
After a decade of some progress lowering the state’s uninsured rate and increasing insurance coverage, Kansas will likely see an increase in its uninsurance rate – leading to more uncompensated care, delayed care, increased medical debt, and increased emergency room usage. We likely will see all insurance premiums increase, too.
Kansas is expected to lose nearly $4 billion in Medicaid funding over the next 10 years, right as health care costs continue to rise. Rural hospitals will be hit hardest. While the bill included a rural hospital fund, the fund doesn’t begin to cover the funding losses coming.
If health providers close or reduce services due to funding decreases, the health care access of all Kansans will be impacted – regardless of insurance status.
Kansas lawmakers could face tough budget choices for funding the state’s KanCare program if less federal funding is available and the state has fewer tools available to pay its share, even as health care costs continue to increase.
The Legislature could cut other parts of the state budget (including K-12 education) to continue funding KanCare at the levels it needs, develop additional state-allowed barriers for Kansans to receive KanCare, or they could cut optional services, including the Home and Community Based Services (HCBS) Waivers.
Additionally, any progress Kansas has made with reducing the IDD/PD waiting lists, which has been in headlines in recent years, would be lost.
The fallout from this bill means more uninsured Kansans, less funding for Medicaid, kids not getting timely care, threats to disability services, tough budget decisions for the Kansas Legislature, and ultimately, less access to health care for everyone.
More Kansans will go hungry due to the massive SNAP cuts. Around 20,000 Kansas families are projected to lose some of their SNAP benefits and will struggle to keep food on the table. Many 55- to 64 year-olds, newly subject to work reporting requirements, may have a difficult time maintaining an 80-hour-per-month work schedule as they age out of the workforce.
Parents with teenagers will be required to pick up more work hours even as they shuffle their kids between extracurricular events. Those with sick kids will be in danger of losing their food assistance. Refugees, fighting to put their lives back together after fleeing traumatizing situations, will have their food and health insurance ripped away from them.
Even further, if Kansas lawmakers are unwilling to foot the bill for the new SNAP cost-share starting in FY 2028, 187,000 Kansans will lose their food assistance completely.
The passage of this bill puts non-citizen Kansas families under attack from the government. In recent months, we have already seen inflammatory anti-immigrant rhetoric, legally questionable enforcement tactics by ICE, and the construction of inhumane detention facilities. This bill triples the budget for this administration to turn the dial to full throttle, leaving immigrant families living in fear of abduction and making our communities less safe.
Conclusion
Many members of the Kansas Congressional delegation sold this bill as a choice of either passing this bill or all Kansans paying thousands of dollars more per year to the federal government. This was a false choice, and Congress had an abundance of alternatives.
They could have come up with an entirely different plan that focused only on taxes. Instead, they chose to pass a nearly 900-page bill that slashes the social safety net, guts investment in critical infrastructure, and adds trillions to the national debt.
More than a tax bill, this is the President’s entire agenda and it will have consequences for decades. Onerous paperwork requirements will prevent eligible people from receiving assistance in the future. State budgets will be cut as less federal funding comes in to support critical programs. Medicaid state funding will be reduced over time, and SNAP program costs will increase.
Congress’ combined actions will make it harder for Kansans to thrive, at a time when families are already facing far too many challenges. By design, many of the most harmful policies in this bill will go into effect beginning in 2027, and we will be here to remind you how it happened.
< Back to the news listShare
