Republicans on the Idaho Legislature’s budget committee on Tuesday rejected funding requests to implement some of the initiatives President Donald Trump signed into law in the federal One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.
During its meeting Tuesday at the Idaho State Capitol in Boise, the Legislature’s Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee considered a fiscal year 2027 funding request for the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare that would have implemented three changes required by Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
- It would have accounted for the change in the federal/state split for administrative costs for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, which was formerly known as food stamps. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act changed the share from a 50/50 split to a 75% state share and a 25% federal share, according to state budget documents.
- It would have paid for ongoing expenses and monitoring of the work and community engagement requirements for the Medicaid expansion population required by Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act and the Idaho Legislature’s House Bill 345 from 2025.
- It would have paid for one-time Medicaid eligibility system changes after the One Big Beautiful Bill Act required eligibility for Medicaid expansion to be determined every six months instead of every 12 months.
The total impact of the funding request was an additional $5.3 million from the general fund portion of the state budget and a $1.4 million reduction in federal funding.
The motion to approve the funding failed after the 10 JFAC members from Idaho House of Representatives voted 5-5 on the proposal – falling short of the necessary majority.
Reps. Dustin Manwaring, R-Pocatello; Brandon Mitchell, R-Moscow; Elaine Price, R-Coeur d’Alene, Chris Bruce, R-Kuna; and Kyle Harris, R-Lewison, voted against it.
Not providing funding to implement changes required by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act could lead to additional costs for the state down the road or potential penalties if the state is found to be out of compliance.
After Tuesday’s meeting, Manwaring said he voted against the proposal because he wants to see better planning for how much federal funding the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare will need to spend, rather than awarding the department the whole funding amount and then counting on the department to revert back any unspent funds.
Although JFAC members voted against providing funding to account for the SNAP changes and monitor the work requirement changes, committee members can likely consider the proposal again before the 2026 legislative session adjourns.
JFAC is scheduled to reconvene at 8 a.m. Wednesday at the Idaho State Capitol in Boise to resume working on elements of the state budget.
JFAC members debated SNAP funding request outside of public’s view
Later on during Tuesday’s meeting, JFAC’s co-chairs put the committee at ease due to some technical difficulties in the room, effectively pausing the committee meeting.
Need to get in touch?
Have a news tip?
During the pause while the committee was at ease, several JFAC members and Idaho Department of Health Director Juliet Charron took part in a lengthy discussion about the failed SNAP and work requirements budget proposal in the JFAC room outside of the public’s view.
During the private discussion, which an Idaho Capital Sun reporter observed, multiple JFAC members discussed specific dollar amounts, reasons for voting no and reasons that kept them from voting yes.
Some JFAC members discussed whether to immediately bring the proposal back up for another vote.
It appeared that multiple JFAC members were deliberating toward a possible decision outside of the public’s view, which potentially raises questions about JFAC’s transparency and whether public decisions are being made outside of a public meeting.
It’s not the first time in recent weeks that JFAC members have appeared to debate toward decisions outside the public’s view. During a pre-dawn motion meeting Feb. 20 that an Idaho Capital Sun reporter attended, multiple JFAC members said they would prefer to discuss restoring funding for Idaho National Guard tuition and benefit incentives upstairs – in private, away from the public’s view – rather than downstairs during a public JFAC meeting scheduled that same morning. Once the public meeting began, JFAC members then voted against restoring funding for National Guard tuition and benefits that have been cut.
Broadly speaking, it is considered a best practice for units of government to conduct public business – including discussions on spending or cutting taxpayer funds – in full view of the public.
YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE.