The Biden Administration and House Republicans recently reached a bi-partisan deal to raise the debt ceiling. To reach the compromise, and keep the United States from a catastrophic debt default, the White House agreed to a series of spending cuts to social safety net programs, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or food stamps. (Here is a look at the American presidents who added the most to the national debt.)

SNAP is a federal program designed to help needy families and households afford food. The debt ceiling deal includes considerable changes to SNAP eligibility, expanding work requirements for older Americans, while also expanding access for veterans and homeless populations.

According to the latest available data from the U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey, more than 15.8 million American households -- or 12.4% of all households -- received SNAP benefits in 2021. And exactly how many Americans would be directly impacted by the latest eligibility changes remains to be seen.

Of the three metro areas with available data in Oklahoma, Lawton has the highest SNAP recipiency rate. According to the ACS, 13.4% of all area households received SNAP benefits in 2021, slightly below the 13.8% SNAP recipiency rate across the state as a whole.

Of all 366 metro areas nationwide with available data, Lawton ranks as having the 144th highest SNAP recipiency rate.

StateMetro area with highest SNAP recipiency rateMetro area SNAP recipiency rate (%)State SNAP recipiency rate (%)Metro area(s) considered in stateAlabamaMobile19.514.112AlaskaAnchorage8.710.41ArizonaYuma22.311.27ArkansasFort Smith15.110.96CaliforniaEl Centro25.912.026ColoradoPueblo19.48.47ConnecticutNew Haven-Milford14.411.74DelawareDover12.910.51FloridaMiami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach18.614.121GeorgiaColumbus22.012.414HawaiiKahului-Wailuku-Lahaina11.412.62IdahoPocatello16.28.46IllinoisDecatur20.414.110IndianaKokomo13.89.411IowaDavenport-Moline-Rock Island15.89.87KansasWichita10.07.32KentuckyBowling Green15.514.25LouisianaLake Charles22.919.09MaineLewiston-Auburn13.511.53MarylandCumberland18.012.65MassachusettsSpringfield20.114.65MichiganSaginaw19.613.414MinnesotaDuluth9.47.95MississippiHattiesburg12.713.53MissouriSt. Joseph12.310.28MontanaGreat Falls11.58.63NebraskaOmaha-Council Bluffs9.28.53NevadaLas Vegas-Henderson-Paradise14.313.62New HampshireManchester-Nashua5.96.01New JerseyVineland-Bridgeton15.99.13New MexicoFarmington28.420.74New YorkBuffalo-Cheektowaga16.415.012North CarolinaGoldsboro25.513.915North DakotaFargo6.66.22OhioLima20.113.011OklahomaLawton13.413.83OregonGrants Pass24.715.98PennsylvaniaErie19.614.118Rhode IslandProvidence-Warwick16.414.91South CarolinaFlorence20.911.18South DakotaRapid City7.88.02TennesseeKingsport-Bristol15.311.910TexasMcAllen-Edinburg-Mission30.912.223UtahOgden-Clearfield6.35.64VermontBurlington-South Burlington9.910.91VirginiaVirginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News10.68.89WashingtonYakima23.912.310West VirginiaBeckley22.118.37WisconsinMilwaukee-Waukesha15.611.812WyomingN/AN/A5.50

(The Center Square) – Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird announced Tuesday that she’s leading a coalition of 19 states challenging an Environmental Protection Agency decision regarding trucks, emissions and California.

The coalition filed a petition for review Monday in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit regarding the EPA’s April 6 decision to grant the California Air Resource Board waivers on regulations for heavy-duty on road vehicles and engines.

EPA found that the California board’s Advanced Clean Trucks, Zero Emission Airport Shuttle Bus and Zero Emission Powertrain Certification regulations meet criteria for a waiver under the Clean Air Act.

In the Clean Air Act, Congress decided that there would be two programs for control of emissions from new motor vehicles: EPA emission standards under the Clean Air Act and California emission standards under state law. Other states can adopt California’s standards, as Congress determined that California could be a pioneer for new emission standards and control technologies.

EPA can deny a California waiver request in three cases: if California's determination that its standards are at least as protective as applicable federal standards is arbitrary and capricious; if California has no need for such standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions; or if California's standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are inconsistent with section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.

EPA granted a waiver for the 2018 Heavy-duty 2018 Warranty Amendments; the Advanced Clean Trucks Regulation, the Zero Emission Airport Shuttle Bus Regulation and the Zero Emission Powertrain Certification Regulation, EPA announced March 31. The ACT Regulation requires manufacturers produce and sell more medium- and heavy-duty zero-emission vehicles and near zero emission vehicles in California.

The Advanced Clean Truck regulation requires truck manufacturers who certify vehicles with combustion engines to sell an increasing percentage of zero-emission trucks for California sales from 2024 to 2035,the board said. By 2035, zero-emission truck/chassis sales would need to be 55% of Class 2b – 3 truck sales, 75% of Class 4 – 8 straight truck sales and 40% of truck tractor sales. Owners of at least 50 trucks must report on their existing fleet operations so the board can help ensure fleets purchase and use available zero-emission trucks.

Currently, 2% of heavy trucks sold in the U.S. are electric, and electric trucks cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, according to a news release from Bird’s office. Eight other states have adopted California’s ban, and more are considering it.

“California’s truck ban will not only increase costs, but it will devastate the demand for liquid fuels, such as biodiesel, and cut trucking jobs across the nation,” the release said.

Iowa’s trucking industry currently provides almost 100,000 jobs, or nearly one in 13 jobs in the state, the release said.

According to Bird’s office, California’s Advanced Clean Trucks regulation violates the Clean Air Act and other federal laws.

“Iowa isn’t going to take a backseat as the EPA and California try to regulate truckers out of business,” Bird said. “We’re pushing back.”

Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Ohio, South Carolina, Utah and West Virginia have joined the petition.

(The Center Square) - The approval of a virtual charter school application for St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School granted Monday is unconstitutional, Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond said.

The Statewide Virtual Charter School Board approved the application by a vote of 3-2. The school would be the first of its kind in the country, Drummond said. But legal action is likely after a contract is signed, he said.

“The approval of any publicly funded religious school is contrary to Oklahoma law and not in the best interest of taxpayers,” Drummond said. “It’s extremely disappointing that board members violated their oath in order to fund religious schools with our tax dollars. In doing so, these members have exposed themselves and the State to potential legal action that could be costly.”

The board rejected the proposal in April. It has the support of Oklahoma Superintendent of Instruction Ryan Walters.

"I encouraged the board to approve this monumental decision and now the U.S.' first religious charter school will be welcomed by my administration," Walters said in a statement. "I have fought for school choice in all forms and this further empowers parents."

Gov. Kevin Stitt signed an education package that includes school choice credits for parents last month.

This is a win for religious liberty and education freedom in our great state, and I am encouraged by these efforts to give parents more options when it comes to their child’s education," Stitt said. "Oklahomans support religious liberty for all and support an increasingly innovative educational system that expands choice."

Americans United for Separation of Church and State said they are preparing legal action.

"It’s hard to think of a clearer violation of the religious freedom of Oklahoma taxpayers and public-school families than the state establishing the nation’s first religious public charter school, said Rachel Laser, the organization's president, in a statement. "This is a sea change for American democracy. Americans United will work with our Oklahoma and national partners to take all possible legal action to fight this decision and defend the separation of church and state that’s promised in both the Oklahoma and U.S. Constitutions."

(The Center Square) - Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt said Friday he would let the fiscal year 2024 budget go into law, but he would not sign it.

The governor criticized lawmakers for spending $12.96 billion and relying on one-time revenues to support recurring expenditures that exceed recurring revenues by about $220 million.

"They have also drawn down the State’s savings from about $6.2 billion to $4.2 billion," Stitt said in a statement. "Because this approach is neither sustainable nor fiscally wise, I have not signed House Bill 1004x. Nevertheless, subject to objections to the unique process by which the Bill made its way to my desk, the Bill will become law without signature."

The budget included an education package with school choice tax credits and teacher pay raises, a 21.5% increase over last year's spending, according to House Appropriations and Budget Chair Rep. Kevin Wallace, R-Wellston, said in a statement after the budget passed. Lawmakers allocated $5.6 billion to education, which accounts for 43% of the budget. The next highest spending is for health at $2.3 billion, or 18.2% of the budget.

The budget did not eliminate the grocery tax, a move proposed by Stitt before the session. The governor said last week he would consider calling lawmakers back for a special session to consider tax cuts.

"You know, when you think about it, when we have $6 billion in savings and we have $1.2 billion in excess revenue above expenses, you shouldn't just spend all that money," Stitt said. "You should give some of that back to the taxpayer. The fact that we weren't able to get that done, to me, is just unbelievable."

Two Republican lawmakers that voted against the budget are asking for a constitutional amendment to cap legislative appropriations. State Reps. Tom Gann, R-Inola, and Rick West, R-Heavener, said their proposal is in response to the budget.

“We are fiduciaries of taxpayer dollars not investment advisors," Gann said. "Regrettably, lawmakers have demonstrated repeatedly through massive spending increases over recent years that they are unable to resist the temptation. It's time for the people of Oklahoma to intervene with the Legislature."

The special session has not closed and lawmakers could return to Oklahoma City and vote for the resolution. If it passes, voters could decide on the issue next year, according to Gann and West.

Democrats also opposed the budget because of the $700 million in school choice tax credits included.

"The fact that we have so much in savings begs the question as to why there could not have been $200,000 to $300,000 set aside for the Clara Luper Civil Rights Center, when we are helping households that make $75,000 to $250,000 a year to pay for their education expenses for their children that they have chosen to put in private, religious, or home school situations," said Sen. George Young, D-Oklahoma City.

(The Center Square) - Gov. Kevin Stitt will send Oklahoma National Guard troops to the southern border, joining other Republican governors who have made similar commitments.

Stitt said he is responding to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott's call for reinforcements for the ongoing border crisis.

"As Governor, the decision to deploy members of the National Guard is not one I take lightly and, as the parent of a deployed soldier, I am acutely aware of the sacrifices made by the brave men and women of our National Guard and their families during deployment,” Stitt said. “However, I believe it is in the best interest of Oklahoma and the nation to take decisive action to address the federal government’s utter failure to secure our southern border.”

Stitt did not say when or how many troops he would send.

Twelve other Republican governors have said they will help with securing the border. South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem also announced this week she is sending at least 50 National Guard troops to the Texas border. Gov. Doug Burgum of North Dakota committed to sending 100 troops, and Arkansas Gov. Sarah Sanders said she would send 80. West Virginia’s Gov. Jim Justice announced his plans to send 50 guard troops, Tennessee is sending 100, and Gov. Glenn Youngkin of Virginia committed to sending troops.

In total, Republican governors are supplying the help of 1,305 national guardsmen and 231 law enforcement personnel, according to a letter signed by 13 governors.

“President Biden has abandoned his constitutional responsibility to secure the border and continues to fail to prevent millions of migrants from illegally crossing into our country. The illegal flow of criminals, drugs, and contraband moving across our border create an untenable situation for all states,” the letter said. “In response, Republican governors are providing support where Biden failed. The personnel and resources from our states will enhance Governor Abbott’s Operation Lone Star security mission to deter and repel unlawful border crossings along the southern border.”

Stitt said he sent a letter to President Biden along with 25 other Republican governors in September asking for a meeting on the border crisis within 15 days but never received a response, the governor said.

"Republican governors continue to step up to the plate when President Biden refuses to lead; and by deploying our brave National Guard Troops, we are sending a strong message that we remain dedicated to defending our borders and upholding law and order in our nation,” said Stitt.

(The Center Square) - Illegal immigrants cost states millions of dollars, and a new rule will worsen the situation, 18 attorneys general said in a lawsuit filed against the Biden administration.

The Department of Homeland Security's new "Circumvention of Lawful Pathways" rule requires migrants crossing the border to seek asylum for a reason with few exceptions. One of those exceptions – the use of a U.S. Customs Border and Patrol app – is likely to increase illegal immigration, the attorneys general said in their lawsuit.

Migrants who use the app to make an appointment at a point of entry will be allowed into the U.S. to apply for asylum, according to the rule. They can also apply for a two-year work authorization.

The Biden administration said the proposed rule would curb illegal entry at the borders. The attorneys general said it is a "smoke screen."

"The federal government has an obligation to the states and to the people of this country to enforce federal immigration laws and protect our national borders," said North Dakota Attorney General Drew Wrigley. "But rather than enforcing our border security laws, the federal government is encouraging illegal aliens to schedule their entry into this country through a phone app, after which they predictably disperse around the country without any meaningful oversight."

States are bearing the costs of illegal immigration "through education programs, state medical costs, incarceration of illegal aliens who commit crimes, and welfare programs," the attorneys general said. North Dakota has between 6,000 and 9,000 illegal immigrants, which cost the state between $27 million and $36 million a year.

Indiana has about 207,000 illegal immigrants which cost the state about $9.2 million annually.

"In a truly Orwellian twist, the federal government has depicted this latest measure as a tool for reducing illegal immigration," said Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita. "As a matter of fact, this new rule would make it even easier to illegally immigrate into the United States — and everyday Hoosiers right here in Indiana would pay the price."

The attorneys general said the rule violates the Administrative Procedures Act, which determines how federal agencies can propose regulations. They are asking the court to declare the rule unlawful under the APA and stop the Biden administration from enacting certain portions.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in western North Dakota, is also signed by the attorneys general of Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia and Wyoming.

(The Center Square) - Despite the Oklahoma Supreme Court's ruling on Wednesday striking down two abortion laws, a 1910 law outlawing abortion still stands, according to the Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond's office.

"Except for certain circumstances outlined in that statute, abortion is still unlawful in the State of Oklahoma," the office said in a statement sent to The Center Square.

The state Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision ruled two abortion bills passed in 2022 are unconstitutional. House Bill 4327 banned abortions except to save the mother's life and allowed abortion providers to be sued in civil court for up to $10,000 for violating the law. Senate Bill 1503 in 2022 prohibited abortions after a fetus' heartbeat was detected unless it would save the mother's life.

Gov. Kevin Stitt said he "disagreed wholeheartedly" with the Supreme Court's decision.

"This court has once more over-involved itself in the state's democratic process, and has interceded to undo legislation created by the will of the people," Stitt said. "I agree with Justice Rowe's dissent, 'The issues presented in this matter are political questions, which are better resolved by the people via our democratic process.'"

Other Republicans agreed with Stitt and said the court exercised "judicial activism."

"On Wednesday, a rogue Oklahoma Supreme Court, acting as self-appointed legislators, unleashed another attack on Oklahoma's unborn children," said Sen. Julie Daniels, R-Bartlesville. "The court also thumbed its nose at the Legislature and showed their contempt for the separation of powers."

Sen. David Bullard, R-Durant, said the court is out of touch with Oklahomans.

"They are, however, making judicial reform more and more of a necessity and the Legislature will reform the courts to be what they should have been all along," he said.

House Democratic Leader Cyndi Munson said she is pleased by the decision.

"As SB1503 and HB4327 advanced through the legislative process in 2022, House Democrats continually questioned their constitutionality," Munson, D-Oklahoma City, said. "Today's ruling is a reminder, for the supermajority in both chambers, that putting forth extremist legislation for partisan political points is a waste of taxpayer time and money."

(The Center Square) - The Oklahoma Supreme Court struck down two abortion laws Wednesday passed by state lawmakers in 2022, calling them "unconstitutional."

Senate Bill 4327 banned abortions except to save the mother's life and allowed abortion providers to be sued in civil court for up to $10,000 for violating the law.

State lawmakers also passed Senate Bill 1503 in 2022, known as the "Heartbeat Act." The bill banned abortions after a fetus' heartbeat was detected unless it would save the mother's life.

The concurring justices referred to a March ruling in a separate case that said women have a "limited right to abortion."

The justices also said the Heartbeat Act does not define a "medical emergency and has no severability clause.

House Speaker Charles McCall, R-Atoka, said he was disappointed with the ruling.

"Oklahoma is one of the most pro-life states in the nation," McCall said in a statement. "Today's ruling won't change that, and we will continue to be a voice for the voiceless as we strive to protect the right to life in the State of Oklahoma."

This is a developing story.

(The Center Square) – Environmental, social and governance investment standards are a hot topic among Republican lawmakers across the U.S. who see it as a political move to force a progressive agenda.

Democrats, on the other hand, see it as a smart investing strategy.

Oklahoma is the latest state to attract national attention to ESG investing, even though the Legislature passed a bill regarding it last year. State Treasurer Todd Russ published a list of 13 financial institutions banned from doing business with the state of Oklahoma earlier this month because of their ESG policies regarding fossil fuels.

Those 13 companies have 90 days to tell the state it has stopped boycotting energy companies. And if they haven't stopped their boycott, the law grants the state six months to divest itself of 50% of investments with the financial company and a full year to divest 100%.

In Tennessee, Gov. Bill Lee signed a bill that prevents the state's treasurer from investing state funds based on ESG. The bill's fiscal note states it will not significantly impact state or local revenues.

Some Republican states are raising concerns and sometimes rejecting bills banning ESG-related policies.

The North Dakota House of Representatives rejected a bill that would have required the North Dakota Department of Financial Institutions to monitor banks for ESG policies. The bill would have cost the state about $1.7 million, with most of that going to salaries for additional bank examiners.

The Arkansas Legislature also discussed possible fiscal implications when discussing a bill similar to Oklahoma's, requiring the state to divest from financial institutions with ESG standards. The treasurer would also have to maintain a list of those financial institutions. Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders signed the legislation.

Fiscal concerns have not deterred every state from opposing ESG standards. Indiana Gov. Eric Holcomb signed House Bill 1008, which prohibits the board of trustees of the Indiana public retirement system "from making an investment decision with the purpose of influencing any social or environmental policy or attempting to influence the governance of any corporation for nonfinancial purposes." It also requires the pension board to make investment decisions "solely in the financial interest of the participants and beneficiaries of the system for the exclusive purposes of providing financial benefits to participants and beneficiaries and defraying reasonable expenses of administering the system." This despite concerns concerns the state could lose $6.7 billion in investments.

Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes, Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall and Illinois State Treasurer Michael Frerichs testified before the U.S. House Oversight Committee earlier this month. Frerichs told the panel that ESG was simply data used to make investment decisions. Treasurers and comptrollers from Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, New York City, Oregon, Vermont and Washington state issued a statement backing Frerichs' testimony.

“The truth is simple. More data on risk leads to stronger returns for retirement accounts over the long term," they said. “Ignoring risks to focus on short-term gains is not aligned with the needs of millions of Americans saving for retirement or their families’ education. But it is aligned with a short-term outlook to boost corporate profits. That’s why we’re hearing such loud and manufactured outrage against responsible investing.”

While Republicans are banning financial institutions with ESG investment standards, Democratic-controlled states are embracing policies.

New York lawmakers are considering a bill establishing a Green New Deal task force. The task force would develop a “detailed statewide, industrial, economic mobilization plan for the transition of the New York economy to become greenhouse neutral by 2030.” One of the bill’s goals is to promote “economic and environmental justice and equality.”

Washington state lawmakers are considering a bill that would require "the state investment board publicly report on the climate-related financial risk, social responsibility, and proxy voting and corporate governance policies within its private and public market portfolios, including the alignment of the fund with the Paris climate agreement and Washington's climate policy goals." The legislation has yet to be heard in committee.

In Arizona, the Republican-majority Legislature passed a bill banning banks from using a "social credit score" when making lending decisions. Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs vetoed the bill, calling it ambiguous as it doesn't define a "social credit score."

And in Illinois, Democratic lawmakers passed a bill that requires investment managers of Illinois public funds, including pension systems, to disclose how they integrate environmental, social and governance policies into their investment strategies. The bill is set to be sent to Democratic Gov. J.B. Pritzker.

(The Center Square) – Several states have already banned or are considering banning foreign ownership of farmland from U.S. adversaries such as China, a trend that has its recent roots in North Dakota.

Chinese food manufacturer Fufeng Group purchased 370 acres of land for a corn milling plant in Grand Forks in November 2021.

By January 2023, the Grand Forks City Council announced it would deny building permits for the plant, killing the project 12 miles from the Grand Forks Air Force Base.

The pressure came from state and federal officials concerned about the proposed plant's ties to China and its proximity to the base. A report from the Air Force that officially called the purchase of the land a "threat to national security" sealed the transaction's fate.

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, about 40.8 million acres of U.S. farmland is owned by foreign citizens, companies or countries as of 2021. China owned about 384,000 acres of U.S. farmland.

While the Grand Forks plan is dead, states' efforts to prevent China and other communist countries from owning land are ongoing.

North Dakota lawmakers this session passed a bill that prevents city or county governments from entering into land deals with foreign adversaries. Other legislators have also introduced or passed bills dealing with foreign ownership of agricultural land.

South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem was one of the first governors to ban the Chinese-owned app TikTok from state-owned devices, but her push to ban the country and others from purchasing land was not as successful.

The state banned aliens from owning more than 160 acres of land in 1979. Lawmakers wanted to establish the "Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States – South Dakota," which would scrutinize all foreign farmland purchases.

Senate Bill 185 failed to make it out of the Senate.

Republicans in Arizona also failed to pass a bill banning foreign entities from owning land in their state. It passed the Senate but did not garner enough votes in the House.

Other states are having more success with passing similar legislation.

Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte signed Senate Bill 203 this session that bans land purchases by what it refers to as "foreign adversaries," defined as "any foreign government or foreign non government person determined by the U.S. secretary of commerce to have engaged in a long-term pattern or serious instances of conduct significantly adverse to the national security of the United States ..."

The governor’s office identified China, North Korea, Russia, Iran, Cuba and Venezuela in a news release about signing the legislation.

In Florida, Gov. Ron DeSantis signed legislation in May that prohibits the sale of farmland and land near military bases to the Chinese Communist Party and its agents. The measure also prevents any governmental entity from knowingly entering into contracts with the CCP, or countries and entities of concern. The attorney general will able to bring a civil action against any entity in violation and the civil penalty for doing so will be twice the amount that the entity submitted a bid or proposal.

North Carolina representatives passed a bill that prevents adversarial foreign governments from acquiring farmland or property near military installations. The legislation is in the Senate.

Texas senators passed a bill that would ban foreign nationals from countries posing security threats, including China, from purchasing farmland but the measure didn't get through the House. Gov. Greg Abbott supports the ban and he could add it to the list of items during a summer legislative session he is expected to call.

The possibility of foreign entities owning farmlands is not just a Republican issue. State Sen. Melissa Hurtado, D-Sanger, introduced a bill in heavily-Democratic California that would track foreign ownership of farmland and ban foreign purchases in 2024. The bill was placed in the Legislature's suspense file, killing it for this session.

Federal level

More than 45 members of Congress signed on to the "Prohibition of Agricultural Land for the People’s Republic of China Act." The bill was introduced by U.S. Rep. Dan Newhouse, R-Wash., in 2022 but did not make it out of committee. The current bill is in two committees – Foreign Affairs and Agriculture.

The Senate is considering a bipartisan bill banning several countries from purchasing American farmland. The "Promoting Agriculture Safeguards and Security Act" would add the secretary of agriculture to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. The lead sponsors are Sens. John Tester, D-Mont., and Mike Rounds, R-S.D. The bill is assigned to the Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee.