Connect with us

News

GOP Plan Redefines Dependent Child as ‘Under 7’—But Adds Loophole for Married Couples

Published

on

House Republicans, intent on increasing work requirements for assistance programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and promoting marriage, have devised a new definition for “dependent child.” Currently, an adult has a dependent child if that child is under 18 years of age. Under the new proposed House definition for SNAP, once that child turns seven—usually someone in second grade—they could no longer be considered a dependent, with one exception.

The new House proposal also adds ten years to the time when the adult needs to continue working in order to receive SNAP benefits, from 54 to 64 years of age. However, it removes the work requirement if the adult with the dependent child is married and lives with someone who already complies with the new regulations. Unmarried couples with a child would not qualify for the exemption.

The new proposal would be part of Republicans’ legislation that would provide $4.5 trillion in tax cuts, largely benefiting the wealthy.

READ MORE: GOP ‘Voucher Scheme for the Wealthy’ Would Hand $5 Billion to Religious, Private Schools

The new bill refers to work requirements for “Able Bodied Adults Without Dependents,” or ABAWD. It reads:

“Specifically, this section would increase the age with which ABAWDs must continue working to qualify for SNAP to 64 (up from 54 currently); it changes the generic, functional definition of ‘dependent child’ for ABAWD purposes from under 18 years of age to under 7; and it carves out an exception to the work requirements for a person responsible for a child 7 years of age or older who is married and resides with an individual who complies with the SNAP work requirements.”

An April 30 report by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reveals that the GOP’s proposal “could take food away from millions of people in low-income households who are struggling to find steady work or who face substantial barriers to employment, including families with children.”

That report also notes that “the people who would be newly at risk of losing food assistance under the Johnson proposal include…1.4 million older adults aged 55 through 64 without children in their homes,” “More than 3 million adults who live with school-aged children,” “Veterans, people experiencing homelessness, and young people who have aged out of foster care,” and, “About 1.6 million people living in areas without enough jobs.”

The move also comes as states lower or remove protections for child workers.

Last year, the Center for American Progress published a report titled, “Project 2025 Would Exploit Child Labor by Allowing Minors To Work in Dangerous Conditions With Fewer Protections.”

READ MORE: ‘Bystander’ Trump Keeps Saying ‘I Don’t Know’ — Critics Ask ‘Who’s in Charge?’

 

Image via Reuters

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

‘In This House We Don’t Interrupt’: Democrats Smack Down Treasury Secretary

Published

16 hours ago

on

June 11, 2025

By

House Democrats, apparently frustrated by interruptions from Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, decided to lay down the law—scolding and chastising him during Wednesday’s Ways and Means Committee hearing. Interruptions and delaying tactics, and apparent acts of “filibustering,” have been a hallmark of Trump administration officials’ testimony before Congress this week.

U.S. Rep. Stacey Plaskett, the Delegate from the U.S. Virgin Islands’ at-large district, said to Bessent, “We have seen since January 20th that the stock market overall has gone down 1.3% and gas has gone up.”

“Ma’am, that’s incorrect,” Bessent interjected.

“Excuse me,” Delegate Plaskett replied. “Let me get something straight with you first here,” she declared as the Secretary continued to try to interrupt.

READ MORE: Pride Month Purge: Pentagon Chief Defends Renaming USNS Harvey Milk and Trans Ban

“I’ve seen you interrupt everyone. When you come to someone’s house, you respect their rules. And in this house, we don’t interrupt individuals, and you’re not going to interrupt my time. I’m going to give you time to respond,” she offered.

“You may want to jot down some notes about things that you don’t agree with me on, so that you can respond to them at that time, but while I’m speaking, as the person holding this time, you will refrain from speaking, sir, until I am done.”

“I look forward—” Bessent said, interrupting again.

“Until I am done, and then I will give you time to speak, okay?” Plaskett said.

Bessent later disputed Plaskett’s facts, telling her that “the S&P, if the congresswoman would care to check Bloomberg, the stock market as judged by the S&P, which is the most widely held index by Americans’ 401(k)s, is up on the year.”

As NJ.com reported, the “S&P 500 closed at $6,049.24 on Jan. 21, 2025 and closed at $6,038.81 on June 11, 2025.”

Plaskett was not alone.

READ MORE: ‘The Generals Stay Silent’: Experts Alarmed as Trump Politicizes Army at Fort Bragg Rally

U.S. Rep. Linda Sánchez (D-CA) also berated Bessent for his constant interruptions.

“Unfortunately, you appear to be talking out of both sides of your mouth,” she told Bessent, “because you yourself have admitted, after conversations with Walmart, that some tariff costs are going to get passed on to consumers. And in fact, we’ve already seen that prices are rising on many everyday goods.”

“No, Congresswoman,” Bessent said, interrupting her remarks.

“Please don’t interrupt me,” Sánchez said.

“Today we had a 1.1% increase—” Bessent continued.

“The time is mine. Please don’t interrupt me.”

“And, and,” Bessent continued.

“I will ask you questions, and I will grant you an opportunity to answer them,” she explained, “but please don’t interrupt me during my time.”

“With pleasure,” Bessent said, interrupting her again.

“Okay, I know I’m a woman, but please try to limit yourself to answering my questions,” she urged, to which House Republicans reportedly groaned.

“No, I’m sorry,” Sánchez continued, addressing their response, “but we get talked over all the time and I don’t want that to happen at this hearing.”

Watch the videos above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Show. Us. The. Plan.’: Pentagon Chief Ripped for Dodging Budget Details in Heated Hearing

Continue Reading

News

Pride Month Purge: Pentagon Chief Defends Renaming USNS Harvey Milk and Trans Ban

Published

19 hours ago

on

June 11, 2025

By

U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, testifying before Congress, offered his rationale for stripping the USNS Harvey Milk of its name and for the administration’s decision to ban transgender individuals from serving in the military.

The USNS Harvey Milk is named for the assassinated veteran and LGBTQ rights advocate. Milk was gunned down in 1978 at the age of 48 while serving as a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. He was the first openly gay man elected in California.

U.S. Senator Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), appearing to question the necessity of unnaming and renaming the ship, told Secretary Hegseth: “You chose Pride month to direct the Navy to rename a ship named for Navy veteran Harvey Milk. This committee will continue to pursue serious work in the interests of American national security, and I ask you to choose to join us in that endeavor.”

READ MORE: ‘The Generals Stay Silent’: Experts Alarmed as Trump Politicizes Army at Fort Bragg Rally

Hegseth replied, “Um, Senator, we’re not interested in naming ships after activists. That’s the stance we’re taking.”

As recently as Tuesday, Hegseth told service members, “We’re not interested in your woke garbage and your political correctness.” 

Reports have stated Hegseth intentionally chose Pride Month to strip the USNS Harvey Milk, and other ships, of their names.

USNI News reported that Harvey Milk “commissioned into the Navy in 1951 and served as a diver during the Korean War on the submarine rescue ship Kittiwake. He was discharged in 1955. Milk was wearing his U.S. Navy diver belt buckle when he was shot and killed in 1978.”

Senator Baldwin also asked Hegseth to explain why he and the administration decided to ban transgender service members.

“What assessment did the Department of Defense conduct prior to implementation to evaluate the impact that this policy would have on our national security?” Baldwin asked. “Moreover, what is the cost to recruit and train thousands of individuals of comparable experience and skill?”

READ MORE: ‘Show. Us. The. Plan.’: Pentagon Chief Ripped for Dodging Budget Details in Heated Hearing

“Thankfully, recruiting is not an issue,” Hegseth claimed. “It’s historically high levels and we’re proud of the cross section of Americans in life.”

“What analysis did you do?” Baldwin pressed.

“We did extensive analysis, Senator,” Hegseth insisted, “and we agree with the assessment of the executive order that was issued by the White House, that there are mental health issues associated with gender dysphoria that complicate military service and readiness, and as a result, we made the decision.”

“I have asked for that analysis,” Baldwin stressed. “Please provide it to me and the committee.”

Studies have shown that transgender service members in the military do not negatively affect military readiness.

Watch the videos below or at this link.

RELATED: ‘Doesn’t Even Know Who He’s Talking to’: Newsom Scorches Trump Over Military Deployment

 

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

News

‘Doesn’t Even Know Who He’s Talking to’: Newsom Scorches Trump Over Military Deployment

Published

2 days ago

on

June 10, 2025

By

California Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom chastised President Donald Trump for claiming he recently spoke with him to discuss his decision to deploy 700 Marines to Los Angeles, in addition to the 4,000 National Guard troops he is sending. A portion of L.A. has been besieged by anti-deportation protests.

Asked by reporters in the Oval Office when the last time was that he spoke to the Governor, Trump paused before replying, “A day ago, called him up to tell him, got to do a better job.”

“He’s doing a bad job, causing a lot of death and a lot of potential death,” Trump alleged (video below). There do not appear to have been any deaths due to the Los Angeles protests.

“If we didn’t send out the National Guard, and last time we gave him a little additional help, you would have Los Angeles would be burning right now. Los Angeles would be not a lot different than what you saw, take place in California, and Los Angeles, just a little while ago.”

READ MORE: ‘Show. Us. The. Plan.’: Pentagon Chief Ripped for Dodging Budget Details in Heated Hearing

But the California Democrat disputed Trump’s claim.

“There was no call. Not even a voicemail,” he wrote on social media.

“Americans should be alarmed that a President deploying Marines onto our streets doesn’t even know who he’s talking to,” said Newsom, leveling charges that appeared to reinforce claims—primarily from the left—that President Trump’s mental competence is in question.

Newsom did speak with Trump, he said over the weekend, but the two did not discuss the National Guard.

“Newsom said he and Trump spoke late on Friday night—about 1.30 a.m. Saturday in D.C.—but Trump never brought up the National Guard,” The Daily Beast reported on Monday.

“We talked for almost 20 minutes and he barely, this issue never came up,” Newsom said on MSNBC. “I tried to talk about L.A., he wanted to talk about all these other issues. We had a very decent conversation.”

READ MORE: ‘Subterfuge’: Noem Push a ‘Prelude’ to Invoking Insurrection Act, Experts Warn

But “Newsom slammed Donald Trump as a ‘stone-cold liar’ in an MSNBC interview on Sunday, insisting the president’s angry public posturing doesn’t match the tone he struck during a Friday phone call.”

Others also weighed in.

“This is concerning. Who did Trump think he was speaking to?” asked The Lincoln Project.

“Two very different stories here,” observed NBC News Senior National Political Reporter Natasha Korecki.

Watch the video below or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Looking for an Excuse’: Trump Under Fire for Violent Slogan as He Sends Marines to LA

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.