Theo Wells-Spackman is a Report for America corps member who reports for VTDigger.
New federal guidance received Oct. 31 will cause some green card holders in Vermont who arrived as refugees or asylum seekers to lose food benefits at the end of the month, state officials said Thursday.
Meanwhile, State Attorney General Charity Clark and colleagues from 20 other states sent a letter Wednesday to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, requesting corrections to what they argued are incorrect legal interpretations in that guidance.
“It’s really unfortunate that the feds changed the rules,” said Tracy Dolan, director of Vermont’s State Refugee Office. “These folks didn’t do anything wrong — they didn’t fail to meet conditions that other people were meeting.”
The USDA’s October memo was intended to clarify eligibility changes to the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, laid out in July’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Vermont already announced a number of related rule changes in recent months, including expanded work requirements for eligible households to receive benefits, and a loss of access for some noncitizens, including a group of immigrants who assisted the U.S. military overseas.
Previously, Vermonters who entered the country as refugees or asylees were still eligible for 3SquaresVT, the state’s version of SNAP, provided they had a green card. Many do, Dolan said, since those humanitarian programs provide the opportunity to apply for a green card shortly after arrival. Though wait times can be long, applicants are generally successful.
But the USDA is now telling states that the new law means these groups are subject to a five-year waiting period in order to be eligible, according to the Vermont Department for Children and Families. As of Dec. 1, according to officials, 22 households of legal permanent residents will lose partial or total access to federal food assistance. Minors will not be affected by the change, state officials said.
The state’s previous alterations to noncitizen eligibility had already cut off or decreased benefits for 119 households in the program.
Miranda Gray, a deputy commissioner with the Department for Children and Families, said the Oct. 31 memo had “clarified for us that we had another group” of households who are not eligible for the program under the new law.
“SNAP is a federal program … that we have to adhere to,” Gray said.
The State Refugee Office will be providing grants totalling roughly $108,000 as a temporary relief measure for affected families, Dolan said. The original figure before the latest guidance was $106,000, Gray said, but officials have slightly increased the amount of the grant as more than 20 more households were hit by new rule changes.
The funds will be dispersed gradually to especially vulnerable households via the Vermont office of the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, or USCRI, and the Ethiopian Community Development Council. Payments will end in January, and are intended to provide a “ramp down” for those affected by recent rule changes, Dolan said.
Nonetheless, she said, the need will inevitably outstrip these resources. Though some impacted households are more vulnerable than others, everyone has had to “scramble,” Dolan said, by adding more hours at work to an already tough schedule or finding other ways to make ends meet.
Sonali Samarasinghe, the director of USCRI Vermont, agreed in an interview late last month discussing the original allocation. The state’s grant, while “very welcome,” will not solve the problem.
“What we want to do is provide as much help as possible to the most vulnerable of households,” she said, adding “a lot of them are single moms.”
The joint letter to the USDA from the attorneys general of 20 states and the District of Columbia argued that President Donald Trump’s administration incorrectly interpreted some groups’ eligibility for benefits, including refugees, asylum seekers, and Special Immigrant Visa holders who worked with U.S. forces in Afghanistan. State officials also have concerns about how the five-year waiting period is being defined.
Authored by New York State Attorney General Letitia James, the document also criticized USDA’s four-month delay in issuing guidance and its immediate deadline for implementation.
“We request that the USDA correct the mistakes in the Guidance’s interpretation of (The One Big Beautiful Bill Act) … and hold States harmless for any errors resulting from the delayed, misleading, and inaccurate Guidance,” the letter stated.
“The Federal Government is failing states and our citizens and leaving us in an awful position of trying to comply with confusing laws and an incredibly poorly timed guidance,” Clark said in an emailed statement Friday.
Gray said she was aware of Clark’s joint letter and that her team would continue to seek additional federal clarification as it becomes available.
USDA did not respond to requests for comment.
