Connect with us

Business

Trump vows to fight ‘fraud’ in SNAP benefits for 42 million Americans

Published

on



President Donald Trump ’s administration is talking tough about SNAP, saying the government’s biggest food aid program is riddled with fraud that must be stopped.

His appointees are looking at Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program from an enforcement perspective, seeing fraud as a major and expensive problem, perpetrated by organized criminal organizations, individual recipients and retailers willing to break the laws for profit.

“We know there are instances of fraud committed by our friends and neighbors, but also transnational crime rings,” Jennifer Tiller, a senior advisor to U.S. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, said in an interview.

Some experts agree that SNAP fraud is a major problem. But there is little publicly available data showing the extent of it, and others who study the program are skeptical about the scale.

“It you’re spending $100 billion on anything, you’re going to have some leakage,” said Christopher Bosso, a professor of public policy and politics at Northeastern University who published a book on SNAP.

The administration leans into fraud allegations

Of the $100 billion spent on SNAP a year, about $94 billion goes to benefits and the rest to administrative costs.

About 42 million people — or 1 in 8 Americans — receive SNAP benefits averaging about $190 per person per month. The number of recipients is in the same ballpark as the number of people in poverty — 36 million by the traditional measure and 43 million under a more nuanced one also used by the federal government.

Under federal law, most households must report their income and basic information every four to six months and be fully recertified for SNAP at least every 12 months.

The Trump administration has demanded that states turn over data on individual SNAP recipients including Social Security numbers, dates of birth and immigration status as part of its effort to root out fraud.

States with Republican governors, plus North Carolina, have complied. Most led by Democrats are pushing back in court, arguing that providing the data would violate recipients’ privacy.

The USDA says that from the records that have been shared, it found 186,000 deceased people — about 1% of participants in those states — receiving benefits and about 500,000 people — about 2.7% — receiving benefits in more than one jurisdiction.

The USDA has not made public detailed reports on the data and has not broken down the estimates by type of alleged fraud. The department also hasn’t answered questions about what portion of any improperly awarded benefits was actually spent and how much sat unclaimed on EBT cards after recipients moved or died.

The department estimated in a letter to the states that have refused to turn over data that the nationwide total combining fraud and undetected errors could be $9 billion a year or more. Democratic-led states responded in a letter last week that states already have systems to catch wrongdoing and that USDA isn’t explaining how it’s crunching the numbers.

Program participants can be perpetrators or victims of fraud

There are a lot of forms of wrongdoing.

SNAP benefits are put on EBT cards that recipients swipe in stores like debit cards. Organized crime groups put skimmers on EBT readers to get information used to make copies of the benefit cards and steal the allotments of recipients — or to use stolen identity information to apply for benefits for fictitious people. A Romanian man who was in the U.S. illegally pleaded guilty last year to skimming cards in California. Authorities say he took more than 36,000 numbers over three years.

A USDA employee pleaded guilty this year to accepting bribes in exchange for providing registration numbers for EBT card readers placed illegally in several New York delis. Authorities said more than $30 million passed through those terminals.

And three people were charged this year in Franklin County, Ohio, accused of using stolen benefits to order big quantities of energy drinks and candy — apparently to resell it.

Mark Haskins, who worked on USDA investigations from 2013 until leaving the department in August as branch chief of a special investigations unit, said there have been cases of retailers running similar operations. Several states are barring using SNAP for some junk food products with policies that kick in as soon as Jan. 1.

Haskins also says some legitimate recipients buy non-grocery items with SNAP benefits by persuading a store employee to ring up the wrong item — generally one that costs more than what’s being bought — or to sell benefit cards. He said he thinks those forms of fraud are more costly than the ones run by organized criminal groups.

Haskins and Haywood Talcove, CEO of LexisNexis Risk Solutions Government, which helps create fraud prevention strategies, both believe fraud costs significantly more than the USDA’s $9 billion estimate.

“The system is corrupt. It doesn’t need a fix here and there, it needs a complete overhaul,” said Haskins, who would like to see fewer retailers in the network and participants having to reapply, even if that makes it harder for qualified people to access benefits.

Advocates and researchers see a different system

The USDA last published a report on SNAP fraud in 2021. It covered what happened in from 2015 through 2017 and found that about 1.6% of benefits were stolen from recipients’ accounts.

The government replaced benefits that were stolen between Oct. 1, 2022 and Dec. 20, 2024. The value of replaced benefits over that time was $323 million — or about 24 cents for every $100 in SNAP benefits, though that’s believed to be an undercount.

It’s reports like those that lead advocates and academics who research SNAP to see fraud, while troublesome, as less than the massive problem the USDA makes it out to be.

Dartmouth College economist Patricia Anderson, who studies food insecurity, said in an email that the maximum benefits for a family of four are about $1,000 a month. “It really takes organized crime that is either stealing from the EBT cards or creating a lot of fake recipients out of whole cloth before the gain for the fraudster really starts to be worth it,” she said.

Jamal Brown, a 41-year-old food stamp participant who lives in Camden, New Jersey, said he’s witnessed people selling benefits to bodegas to get cash. And he’s had his benefits stolen by a skimmer.

He also said he had to deal with benefits being cut off after being told he missed an interview to recertify his need when a county welfare worker didn’t call him as planned.

“It’s always something that goes wrong,” Brown said, “unfortunately.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Female libido pill gets expanded approval for menopause by FDA

Published

on



U.S. health officials have expanded approval of a much-debated drug aimed at boosting female libido, saying the once-a-day pill can now be taken by postmenopausal women up to 65 years old.

The announcement Monday from the Food and Drug Administration broadens the drug’s use to older women who have gone through menopause. The pill, Addyi, was first approved 10 years ago for premenopausal women who report emotional stress due to low sex drive.

Addyi, marketed by Sprout Pharmaceuticals, was initially expected to become a blockbuster drug, filling an important niche in women’s health. But the drug came with unpleasant side effects including dizziness and nausea, and it carries a safety warning about the dangers of combining it with alcohol.

The boxed warning cautions that drinking while consuming the pill can cause dangerously low blood pressure and fainting. If patients have several drinks, the label recommends waiting a few hours before taking the drug, or skipping one dose.

Sales of Addyi, which acts on brain chemicals that affect mood and appetite, fell short of Wall Street’s initial expectations. In 2019, the FDA approved a second drug for low female libido, an on-demand injection that acts on a different set of neurological chemicals.

Sprout CEO Cindy Eckert said in a statement the approval “reflects a decade of persistent work with the FDA to fundamentally change how women’s sexual health is understood and prioritized.” The company, based in Raleigh, North Carolina, announced the FDA update in a press release Monday.

The medical condition for a troublingly low sexual appetite, called hypoactive sexual desire disorder, has been recognized since the 1990s and is thought to affect a significant portion of American women, according to surveys. After the blockbuster success of Viagra for men in the 1990s, drugmakers began pouring money into research and potential therapies for sexual dysfunction in women.

But diagnosing the condition is complicated because of how many factors can affect libido, especially after menopause, when falling hormone levels trigger a number of biological changes and medical symptoms. Doctors are supposed to rule out a number of other issues, including relationship problems, medical conditions, depression and other mental disorders, before prescribing medication.

The diagnosis is not universally accepted, and some psychologists argue that low sex drive should not be considered a medical problem.

The FDA rejected Addyi twice prior to its 2015 approval, citing the drug’s modest effectiveness and worrisome side effects. The approval came after a lobbying campaign by the company and its supporters, Even the Score, which framed the lack of options for female libido as a women’s rights issue.

___

This story has been updated to correct the age range of the FDA approval update. The agency approved the drug for postmenopausal women up to age 65, not older than 65.

___

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

Gavin Newsom hires former CDC officials to work as public health consultants for state of California

Published

on



Two former senior officials from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, including one fired by the Trump administration, will join California as public health consultants, Gov. Gavin Newsom announced Monday.

California joined Washington and Oregon — two other states with Democratic governors — to launch an alliance in September to establish their own public health guidance and vaccine recommendations, as the Trump administration makes sweeping changes to vaccine and health policy.

Susan Monarez was fired as the CDC’s director and Dr. Debra Houry resigned as the agency’s chief medical officer and deputy director over disputes about changes at the agency. The two will work with California’s public health department to help build trust in “science-driven decision-making,” Newsom’s office said.

“By bringing on expert scientific leaders to partner in this launch,” Newsom said in a statement, “we’re strengthening collaboration and laying the groundwork for a modern public health infrastructure that will offer trust and stability in scientific data not just across California, but nationally and globally.”

California has increasingly positioned itself as a counterweight to federal health policy, and Newsom has amped up his criticisms of President Donald Trump and challenged the Republican’s policies in court. The governor’s final term ends in just over a year and he’s gearing up for a possible presidential run in 2028.

California state Sen. Tony Strickland, a Republican, said the new initiative is an example of Newsom prioritizing his national political ambitions over the state.

“California has serious problems, and we need serious solutions from a serious leader,” Strickland said in a statement.

The White House and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services did not respond to emails seeking comment on the hirings.

Trump and Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. have repeated falsehoods about vaccines, and the administration has given health recommendations this year that experts say were not backed by science.

Trump in September urged pregnant women not to take Tylenol, saying it could pose a risk of autism to their babies, remarks medical experts said were irresponsible. The CDC website was changed last month to contradict the longtime scientific conclusion that vaccines do not cause autism. A federal vaccine advisory panel voted earlier this month to reverse decades-old guidance recommending that all U.S. babies get immunized against the liver infection hepatitis B on the day they’re born. The vaccine is credited with preventing thousands of illnesses.

Monarez, a former director of a federal biomedical research agency, was named acting director of the CDC in January. Trump later nominated her to to serve as director. She was confirmed by the Senate in July, making her the first nonphysician to serve in the role. But she was fired by the Trump administration in August after less than a month in the post.

Kennedy has said Monarez was fired after she told him she was untrustworthy. But Monarez said that was false in congressional testimony and that she was fired after refusing to endorse new vaccine recommendations that weren’t backed by science.

Houry, who spent more than a decade at the CDC, was among a handful of top officials at the agency who resigned around the time Monarez was fired. Houry said in August she was concerned about the rise of vaccine misinformation during the Trump administration, as well as planned budget cuts, reorganization and firings at the CDC.

She said she’s excited to join California’s new initiative.

“California will advance practical, scalable solutions that strengthen public health within the state and across states —showing how states can modernize data, share capacity, and work together more efficiently, while remaining focused on protecting people and communities,” Houry said in a statement.

___

Associated Press writer Trân Nguyễn contributed.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Down Arrow Button Icon

Published

on



Dealmakers are heading into the final weeks of 2025 on a $100 billion cliffhanger.

Paramount Skydance Corp.’s hostile bid to snatch Warner Bros. Discovery Inc. from under the nose of Netflix Inc. encapsulates the themes that have shaped a banner year for mergers and acquisitions: renewed desire for transformative tie-ups, massive checks from Wall Street, the flow of Middle East money and US President Donald Trump’s role as both disruptor and dealmaker.

Global transaction values have risen around 40% to about $4.5 trillion this year, data compiled by Bloomberg show, as companies chase ultra-ambitious combinations, emboldened by friendlier regulators. That’s the second-highest tally on record and includes the biggest haul of deals valued at $30 billion or more.

“There’s a sentiment in boardrooms and among CEOs that this is a potential multi-year window where it’s possible to dream big,” said Ben Wallace, co-head of Americas M&A at Goldman Sachs Group Inc. “We’re at the beginning of a rate-cutting cycle so there’s anticipation that there will be more liquidity.”

Beyond Netflix’s purchase of Warner Bros., this year’s blockbusters include Union Pacific Corp.’s acquisition of rival railroad operator Norfolk Southern Corp. for more than $80 billion including debt, the record leveraged buyout of video game maker Electronic Arts Inc., and Anglo American Plc’s takeover of Teck Resources Ltd. to reshape global mining. 

“When you look around and you see your peers doing these big deals and taking advantage of the tailwinds, you don’t want to be left out,” said Maggie Flores, partner at law firm Kirkland & Ellis LLP in New York. “The regulatory environment is in a position that is very conducive to dealmaking and people are taking advantage of it.”

The tally also shows a level of exuberance in certain pockets that some advisers and analysts worry is unsustainable. Global trade tensions are ongoing, and market observers are increasingly warning of a selloff in the white-hot equity markets that have underpinned the M&A resurgence.

Top executives at Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Morgan Stanley have all flagged the risk of a correction in the months ahead, in part tied to concerns about an overheated artificial intelligence ecosystem, where huge amounts of investment have juiced technology stocks.

“These equity returns are really coming out of AI, and AI spend is not sustainable,” said Charlie Dupree, global chair of investment banking at JPMorgan. “If that pulls back, then you are going to see a broader market that isn’t really advancing.”

The AI buzz led to some the year’s standout transactions. Sam Altman’s OpenAI took in major investments from the likes of SoftBank Group Corp., Nvidia Corp. and Walt Disney Co., and a consortium led by BlackRock Inc.’s Global Infrastructure Partners agreed to pay $40 billion for Aligned Data Centers. In March, Google parent Alphabet Inc. framed its $32 billion acquisition of cybersecurity startup Wiz Inc. as a way to provide customers with new safeguards in the AI era.

“Everyone needs to be an AI banker now,” said Wally Cheng, head of global technology M&A at Morgan Stanley. “Just as software began eating the world 15years ago, AI is now eating software. You have to be conversant in AI and understand how it will affect every company.”

The technology sector more broadly has already notched a record year for deals, thanks to a series of big-ticket takeovers across public and private markets. The trend extended to the White House over the summer, when the US government took a roughly 10% stake in Intel Corp. in an unconventional move aimed at reinvigorating the company and boosting domestic chip manufacturing.

It was one of the clearest indications of Trump’s willingness to blur the lines between state and industry and insert himself into M&A situations during his second term, particularly in sectors deemed mission critical. His administration also acquired a stake in rare-earth producer MP Materials Corp. and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has hinted at similar deals in the defense sector.

Trump has separately been positioning himself as kingmaker on high-profile transactions. The government secured a so-called golden share in United States Steel Corp. as a condition for approving its takeover by Japan’s Nippon Steel Corp., and the president recently signaled he’ll oppose any acquisition of Warner Bros. that doesn’t include new ownership of CNN.

“The Trump administration’s approach to merger regulation today is markedly different compared to the first time around,” said Brian Quinn, a professor at Boston College Law School. Quinn said he couldn’t think of a member of the Republican Party from 15 to 20 years ago who would now believe the US government “is involved in the business of picking winners.”

To be sure, bankers will be wondering if they could have achieved more in 2025 had it not been for the chaotic period earlier in the year, when deals were put on hold after Trump’s trade war hobbled markets. And in a sign that persistent economic challenges are still impacting some parts of M&A, the number of deals being announced globally remains flat.

Many small and mid-cap companies have lagged the broader stock market and are opting to pursue their own strategic plans instead of weighing inorganic options, according to Jake Henry, global co-leader of the M&A practice at consultancy McKinsey & Co.

“They’re thinking ‘I’m better off just operating my business and getting there.’ It has to be an explosive offer for them to come to the table,” he said.

Meanwhile, private equity firms, whose buying and selling is a key barometer for M&A, are still having a harder time offloading certain assets because of valuation gaps with buyers. This has had a knock-on effect on their ability to raise funds and spend on new acquisitions. But bankers are starting to see a recovery here too as interest rates come down and bring more potential acquirers to the table.

“What’s motivating sponsors more than anything is their need to return cash to investors,” said Saba Nazar, chair of global financial sponsors at Bank of America Corp. “We have been in bake-off frenzy for the last couple of months.”

Road to Record

Dealmakers began the year whispering of M&A records under Trump’s pro-business administration. While they will just miss out on the milestone in 2025, there is a strong sense on Wall Street that those early bumps only delayed the inevitable. 

Brian Link, co-head of North America M&A at Citigroup Inc., said that after ‘Liberation Day’ in April, he expected to spend more time figuring out the impact of tariffs on different business and how to adjust around that. 

“That has not been the case,” he said. “Unless fear creeps back into the market, there doesn’t seem to be anything in the near term that’s going to change the dynamic here.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.