Connect with us

Business

Single mother sues — and beats — Kentucky for kicking her off food stamps because she bought food at the store where she worked

Published

on



A single mother who relied on federal food assistance lost her benefits in 2020 after Kentucky investigators concluded she’d committed fraud.

The state alleged she had made multiple same-day purchases, tried to overdraw her account a few times, entered a few invalid PINs and sometimes made “whole-dollar” purchases that are unlikely during typical grocery runs.

The woman from Salyersville in Appalachian Kentucky had an explanation: She worked at the store. She would sometimes buy lunch there and then get groceries after work. Her child would also occasionally use her card.

An administrative hearing officer kicked her off the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) regardless, based solely on the allegedly suspicious shopping pattern. She sued — and won.

“It is draconian to take away SNAP benefits from a single mother without clear and convincing evidence that intentional trafficking was occurring during a time when food scarcity is so prevalent,” Franklin County Judge Thomas Wingate said in his 2023 decision.

A surge of disqualifications

Over the last five years, the Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services has brought hundreds of fraud cases that are heavily reliant on transactional data with the goal of revoking people’s food benefits.

Judges, lawyers and legal experts said in interviews and in court documents that such evidence proves little. Kentucky Public Radio reviewed dozens of administrative hearing decisions and court documents from the last five years in which the cabinet relied on shopping patterns to prove a person had “trafficked,” or sold, their benefits.

Kentucky is so aggressive in disqualifying people from SNAP benefits that the state is second in the nation for per-capita administrative disqualifications, behind Florida, according to the most recent federal data from 2023.

In the last decade, disqualifications in Kentucky rose from fewer than 100 in 2015 to over 1,800 in 2023. And more than 300 others have been accused of selling or misusing their benefits since January 2024, according to records obtained by Kentucky Public Radio.

Another Franklin County judge in 2023 ordered the cabinet to stop disqualifying individuals based solely on transactional data, but since the decision, at least three lawsuits allege the health agency continues to bring such cases.

Transactional data alone cannot prove intent to commit fraud nor show the actual result of any individual transaction, University of Kentucky law professor Cory Dodds said, adding, “I’m not saying that folks didn’t do it, didn’t commit the fraud, but I don’t think the cabinet in a lot of these cases has met their burden of proof, either.”

Facing punishment, recipients are pressured to waive their hearings

Kentuckians receive notice of their alleged suspicious activity through mailed letters, in which they’re asked to voluntarily waive their right to a hearing and automatically accept the punishment. On first offense, that’s generally a one-year SNAP ban. They’re also required to repay the full amount the state says they misused.

Often, these cases involve a relatively small amount of money. Records show that more than 900 people have been kicked off for “trafficking” or misuse for less than $1,000 since 2022. The lowest amount alleged was 14 cents.

The state has leaned heavily on administrative hearing waivers since 2015, and by 2023, almost a quarter of all disqualifications were via waiver. Some lawsuits allege individuals did not fully understand the consequences of the waivers and were encouraged to sign by officials.

Kentucky Public Radio reviewed more than two dozen cases since 2020 in which the cabinet accused an individual of trafficking using only spending patterns, despite the participants’ denial or lack of response — and with no other evidence or interviews presented, according to administrative hearing decisions.

Kendra Steele, a spokesperson for the Cabinet for Health and Family Services, declined to schedule an interview with cabinet officials after multiple requests. Steele said in an email that “we have never” brought trafficking cases based solely on transactional data and acknowledged it would not be sufficient to prove intent.

In response to a different question, Steele wrote the investigation into fraud allegations consists of looking into income, living situations “and patterns of spending that are indicative of trafficking.” She did not indicate how any of those factors could be used to prove intentional misuse or selling of SNAP benefits, or how it differs from relying on transactional data — which is inherently a pattern of spending. Steele said in another email that they also interview vendors and SNAP recipients.

‘It’s our fellow Kentuckians who are going hungry’

Roughly 4 in 25 Kentuckians suffer from food insecurity, similar to the national rate of about 14%, according to an Associated Press analysis of U.S. Census Bureau and Feeding America data.

The USDA will stop collecting and releasing statistics on food insecurity after October, saying Sept. 20 that the numbers had become “overly politicized.” The decision comes in the wake of federal funding cuts for food and nutrition safety net programs nationwide.

In the last fiscal year, 1 in 8 Kentuckians benefitted from SNAP, formerly called food stamps. Food insecurity in Kentucky’s rural areas is even more stark, and legal representation harder to come by.

“The people who benefit from these programs are some of the folks that we need to be helping the most in this country,” Dodds said. “It’s our fellow Kentuckians who are going hungry as a result of baseless allegations of waste, fraud and abuse.”

The cabinet denied KPR’s request for case notes on individual fraud accusations starting in early 2024 that would include the evidence used in the accusations. But administrative hearing decisions reviewed by KPR from 2020 through 2023 included evidence the cabinet relied on; hearing officers would frequently say a person had trafficked their benefits based on shopping patterns the state deemed suspicious.

Expert say officials overrely on purchase data

National legal experts who specialize in SNAP access say an overreliance on transactional data isn’t unique to Kentucky. Transactional data was initially meant as a tool to identify potential fraud cases — not as a means to prove it, Georgetown law professor David Super said.

He’s studied SNAP disqualifications for decades, and has seen many cases where he believes transactional data is misconstrued as direct evidence of wrongdoing, instead of requiring a state to build cases with witnesses, affidavits, video evidence and plea deals.

In one redacted 2023 state administrative hearing decision, a hearing officer decided a woman in the eastern Kentucky city of McKee had trafficked her benefits because she had made eight back-to-back transactions in a year. The decision also said she’d checked her balance several times, made a few insufficient fund attempts and had incorrectly entered her PIN number a few times.

She lost her SNAP benefits for a year. In an appeal, the woman told the state she has two kids and had recently discovered she was pregnant.

“Everyone forgets to get something and has to go back in the store and get it,” she wrote, defending her back-to-back purchases.

She received another hearing, but the outcome didn’t change.

Cabinet officials acknowledged in cross examinations during a 2023 case that back-to-back transactions and whole-dollar purchases aren’t forbidden under SNAP rules, nor are recipients told that the cabinet considers them suspicious.

But all of these things are used as evidence — sometimes the sole evidence — that a person misused their benefits.

Kristie Goff, an AppalRed legal aid lawyer in Prestonsburg in southeast Kentucky, used to see many of these cases, though they’ve declined in the last year.

“There have been very few instances in cases I have handled, where a client was not able to give me a perfectly reasonable explanation for those transactions, and none of it was trafficking,” Goff said. “There are no receipts, there’s no video footage to show that someone’s doing anything wrong. It’s just a number written on a paper.”

While saying purchasing history is insufficient to prove trafficking, Kentucky judges have stopped short of demanding that the state change how it trains employees or conducts its SNAP investigations.

State training materials focus almost entirely on purchase patterns

In response to an open records request, the cabinet provided KPR with documents used to train investigators on intentional program violations. They appear to almost exclusively discuss transactional data, including investigating back-to-back payments, large transactions and whole-dollar purchases.

In 2020, Michigan appellate judges decided transactional data alone is never sufficient to prove that a business — or person — fraudulently used SNAP benefits.

Dodds believes that should be the standard for all states, including Kentucky.

He is in the early stages of systematically reviewing thousands of SNAP benefit trafficking hearing decisions between 2020 and 2023. Data from about 700 decisions in 2020 alone already shows that many Kentuckians have been denied benefits before the state presents what he considers real evidence of guilt.

“There are maybe a handful of cases that I would say there was real evidence that they had done something wrong,” Dodds said. “There was one where a woman was on the phone with the hearing officer while she was actively trying to sell her benefits. … But cases with non-transactional data are exceedingly rare.”

___

Associated Press data journalist Kasturi Pananjady contributed to this report.

___

This reporting is part of a series called Sowing Resilience, a collaboration between the Institute for Nonprofit News’ Rural News Network and The Associated Press focused on how rural communities across the U.S. are navigating food insecurity issues. Nine nonprofit newsrooms were involved in the series: The BeaconCapital BEnlace Latino NCInvestigate MidwestThe Jefferson County BeaconKOSULouisville Public MediaThe Maine Monitor and MinnPost. The Rural News Network is funded by Google News Initiative and Knight Foundation, among others.

The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

4 times in 7 seconds: Trump calls Somali immigrants ‘garbage’

Published

on



He said it four times in seven seconds: Somali immigrants in the United States are “garbage.”

It was no mistake. In fact, President Donald Trump’s rhetorical attacks on immigrants have been building since he said Mexico was sending “rapists” across the border during his presidential campaign announcement a decade ago. He’s also echoed rhetoric once used by Adolf Hitler and called the 54 nations of Africa “s—-hole countries.” But with one flourish closing a two-hour Cabinet meeting Tuesday, Trump amped up his anti-immigrant rhetoric even further and ditched any claim that his administration was only seeking to remove people in the U.S. illegally.

“We don’t want ‘em in our country,” Trump said five times of the nation’s 260,000 people of Somali descent. “Let ’em go back to where they came from and fix it.” The assembled Cabinet members cheered and applauded. Vice President JD Vance could be seen pumping a fist. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, sitting to the president’s immediate left, told Trump on-camera, “Well said.”

The two-minute finale offered a riveting display in a nation that prides itself as being founded and enriched by immigrants, alongside an ugly history of enslaving millions of them and limiting who can come in. Trump’s U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids and deportations have reignited an age-old debate — and widened the nation’s divisions — over who can be an American, with Trump telling tens of thousands of American citizens, among others, that he doesn’t want them by virtue of their family origin.

“What he has done is brought this type of language more into the everyday conversation, more into the main,” said Carl Bon Tempo, a State University of New York at Albany history professor. “He’s, in a way, legitimated this type of language that, for many Americans for a long time, was seen as outside the bounds.”

A question that cuts to the core of American identity

Some Americans have long felt that people from certain parts of the world can never really blend in. That outsider-averse sentiment has manifested during difficult periods, such as anti-Chinese fear-mongering in the late 19th century and the imprisonment of some 120,000 Japanese Americans during World War II.

Trump, reelected with more than 77 million votes last year, has launched a whole-of-government drive to limit immigration. His order to end birthright citizenship — declaring that children born to parents who are in the United States illegally or temporarily are not American citizens despite the 14th Amendment — is being considered by the Supreme Court. He has largely frozen the country’s asylum system and drastically reduced the number of refugees it is allowed to admit. And his administration this week halted immigration applications for migrants from 19 travel-ban nations.

Immigration remains a signature issue for Trump, and he has slightly higher marks on it than on his overall job approval. According to a November AP-NORC poll, roughly 4 in 10 adults — 42% — approved of how the president is handling the issue, down from about half who approved in March. And Trump has pushed his agenda with near-daily crackdowns. On Wednesday, federal agents launched an immigration sweep in New Orleans,

There are some clues that Trump uses stronger anti-immigration rhetoric than many members of his own party. A study of 200,000 speeches in Congress and 5,000 presidential communications related to immigration between 1880 and 2020 found that the “most influential” words on the subject were terms like “enforce,” “terrorism” and “policy” from 1973 through Trump’s first presidential term.

The authors wrote in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that Trump is “the first president in modern American history to express sentiment toward immigration that is more negative than the average member of his own party.” And that was before he called thousands of Somalis in the U.S. “garbage.”

The U.S. president, embattled over other developments during the Cabinet meeting and discussions between Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. envoys, opted for harsh talk in his jam-packed closing.

Somali Americans, he said, “come from hell” and “contribute nothing.” They do “nothing but bitch” and “their country stinks.” Then Trump turned to a familiar target. Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., an outspoken and frequent Trump critic, “is garbage,” he said. “Her friends are garbage.”

His remarks on Somalia drew shock and condemnation from Minneapolis to Mogadishu.

“My view of the U.S. and living there has changed dramatically. I never thought a president, especially in his second term, would speak so harshly,” Ibrahim Hassan Hajji, a resident of Somalia’s capital city, told The Associated Press. “Because of this, I have no plans to travel to the U.S.”

Omar called Trump’s “obsession” with her and Somali-Americans “creepy and unhealthy.”

“We are not, and I am not, someone to be intimidated,” she said, “and we are not gonna be scapegoated.”

Trump’s influence on these issues is potent

But from the highest pulpit in the world’s biggest economy, Trump has had an undeniable influence on how people regard immigrants.

“Trump specializes in pushing the boundaries of what others have done before,” said César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández, a civil rights law professor at Ohio State University. “He is far from the first politician to embrace race-baiting xenophobia. But as president of the United States, he has more impact than most.” Domestically, Trump has “remarkable loyalty” among Republicans, he added. “Internationally, he embodies an aspiration for like-minded politicians and intellectuals.”

In Britain, attitudes toward migrants have hardened in the decade since Brexit, a vote driven in part by hostility toward immigrants from Eastern Europe. Nigel Farage, leader of the hard-right Reform U.K. party, has called unauthorized migration an “invasion” and warned of looming civil disorder.

France’s Marine Le Pen and her father built their political empire on anti-immigrant language decades before Trump entered politics. But the National Rally party has softened its rhetoric to win broader support. Le Pen often casts the issue as an administrative or policy matter.

In fact, what Trump said about people from Somalia would likely be illegal in France if uttered by anyone other than a head of state, because public insults based on a group’s national origin, ethnicity, race or religion are illegal under the country’s hate speech laws. But French law grants heads of state immunity.

One lawyer expressed concerns that Trump’s words will encourage other heads of state to use similar hate speech targeting people as groups.

“Comments saying that a population stinks — coming from a foreign head of state, a top world military and economic power — that’s never happened before,” said Paris lawyer Arié Alimi, who has worked on hate speech cases. “So here we are really crossing a very, very, very important threshold in terms of expressing racist … comments.”

But the “America first” president said he isn’t worried about others think of his increasingly polarizing rhetoric on immigration.

“I hear somebody say, ‘Oh, that’s not politically correct,’” Trump said, winding up his summation Tuesday. “I don’t care. I don’t want them.”

___

Contributing to this report are Associated Press writers Will Weissert and Linley Sanders in Washington, John Leicester in Paris, Jill Lawless in London, Evelyne Musambi in Nairobi, Kenya, and Omar Faruk in Mogadishu.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Nearly three-quarters of Trump voters think the cost of living is bad or the worst ever

Published

on



President Donald Trump and his administration insist that costs are coming down, but voters are skeptical, including those who put him back in the White House.

Despite Republicans getting hammered on affordability in off-year elections last month, Trump continues to downplay the issue, contrasting with his message while campaigning last year.

“The word affordability is a con job by the Democrats,” Trump said during a Cabinet meeting on Tuesday. “The word affordability is a Democrat scam.”

But a new Politico poll found that 37% of Americans who voted for him in 2024 believe the cost of living is the worst they can ever remember, and 34% say it’s bad but can think of other times when it was worse.

The White House has said Trump inherited an inflationary economy from President Joe Biden and point to certain essentials that have come down since Trump began his second term, such as gasoline prices.

The poll shows that 57% of Trump voters say Biden still bears full or almost full responsibility for today’s economy. But 25% blame Trump completely or almost completely.

That’s as the annual rate of consumer inflation has steadily picked up since Trump launched his global trade war in April, and grocery prices have gained 1.4% between January and September.

Meanwhile, Vice President JD Vance pleaded for “patience” on the economy last month as Americans want to see prices decline, not just grow at a slower pace.

Even a marginal erosion in Trump’s electoral coalition could tip the scales in next year’s midterm elections, when the president will not be on the ballot to draw supporters.

A soft spot could be Republicans who don’t identify as “MAGA.” Among those particular voters, 29% said Trump has had a chance to change things in the economy but hasn’t taken it versus 11% of MAGA voters who said that.

Across all voters, 45% named groceries as the most challenging things to afford, followed by housing (38%) and health care (34%), according to the Politico poll.

The poll comes as wealthier households are having trouble affording basics, while discount retailers like Walmart and even Dollar Tree are seeing more higher-income customers.

And in a viral Substack post last month, Michael Green, chief strategist and portfolio manager for Simplify Asset Management, argued that the real poverty line should be around $140,000.

“If the crisis threshold—the floor below which families cannot function—is honestly updated to current spending patterns, it lands at $140,000,” he wrote. “What does that tell you about the $31,200 line we still use? It tells you we are measuring starvation.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Apple is experiencing its biggest leadership shakeup since Steve Jobs died, with over half a dozen key executives headed for the exits

Published

on



Apple is currently undergoing the most extensive executive overhaul in recent history, with a wave of senior leadership departures that marks the company’s most significant management realignment since its visionary co-founder and CEO Steve Jobs died in 2011. The leadership exodus spans critical divisions from artificial intelligence to design, legal affairs, environmental policy, and operations, which will have major repercussions for Apple’s direction for the foreseeable future.

On Thursday, Apple announced Lisa Jackson, its VP of environment, policy, and social initiatives, as well as Kate Adams, the company’s general counsel, will both retire in 2026. Adams has been Apple’s chief legal officer since 2017, and Jackson joined Apple in 2013. Adams will step down late next year, while Jackson will leave next month.

Jackson and Adams join a growing list of top executives who have either left or announced their exits this year. AI chief John Giannandrea announced his retirement earlier this month, and its design lead Alan Dye, who took charge of Apple’s all-important user interface design after Jony Ive left the company in 2019, was just poached by Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta this week.​

The scope of the turnover is unprecedented in the Tim Cook era. In July, Jeff Williams, Apple’s COO who was long thought to succeed Cook as CEO, decided to retire after 27 years with the company. One month later, Apple’s CFO Luca Maestri also decided to step back from his role. And the design division, which just lost Dye, also lost Billy Sorrentino, a senior design director, who left for Meta with Dye. Things have been particularly turbulent for Apple’s AI team, though: Ruoming Pang, who headed its AI Foundation Models Team, left for Meta in July and took about 100 engineers with him. Ke Yang, who led AI-driven web search for Siri, and Jian Zhang, Apple’s AI robotics lead, also both left for Meta.

Succession talks heat up

While all of these departures are a big deal for Apple, the timing may not be a coincidence. Both Bloomberg and the Financial Times have reported on Apple ramping up its succession plan efforts in preparation for Cook, who has led the company since 2011, to retire in 2026. Cook turned 65 in November and has grown Apple’s market cap from about $350 billion to a whopping $4 trillion under his tenure. Bloomberg reports John Ternus has emerged as the leading internal candidate to replace him.​

Apple choosing Ternus would be a pretty major departure from what’s worked for Apple during the past decade, which has been letting someone with an operational background and a strong grasp of the global supply chain lead the company. Ternus, meanwhile, is focused on hardware development, specifically for the iPhone, iPad, Mac, and Apple Watch. But it’s that technical expertise that’s made him an attractive candidate, especially as much of the recent criticism about Apple has revolved around the company entering new product categories (Vision Pro, but also the ill-fated Apple Car), as well as its struggling AI efforts.​

Now, of course, with so many executives leaving Apple, succession plans extend beyond the CEO role. Apple this week announced it’s bringing in Jennifer Newstead, who currently works as Meta’s chief legal officer, to replace Adams as the company’s general counsel starting March 1, 2026. Newstead is expected to handle both legal and government affairs, which is essentially a consolidation of responsibilities among Apple’s leadership team, merging Adams’ and Jacksons’ roles into one.​

Alan Dye, meanwhile, will be replaced by Stephen Lemay, a move that’s reportedly being celebrated within Apple and its design team in particular. John Gruber, who’s reported on Apple for decades and has deep ties within the company, wrote a pretty scathing critique about Dye, but in that same breath said employees are borderline “giddy” about Lemay—who has worked on every major Apple interface design since 1999, including the very first iPhone—taking over.

Meanwhile, on the AI team, John Giannandrea will be replaced by Amar Subramanya, who led AI strategy and development efforts at Google for about 16 years before a brief stint at Microsoft.

Hitting the reset button

All of the above departures cover critical functions for Apple: AI competitiveness, design innovation, regulatory navigation, and operational efficiency. Each replacement brings specialized expertise that aligns with the challenges Cook’s successor will inherit.

The real test will be execution across multiple fronts simultaneously. Can Subramanya accelerate Apple’s AI development to match competitive threats? Will Lemay’s design leadership maintain Apple’s interface advantages as AI reshapes user interaction? Can Newstead navigate regulatory challenges while preserving Apple’s privacy-first approach?

What’s certain is the company will look fundamentally different in 2026—and the executive team that grew Apple into a $4 trillion behemoth is departing. The transformation could be as profound as any since Jobs handed the reins to his COO at the time, Tim Cook, 14 years ago.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.