Suzanne McAtee has attended the classes offered through Munson Hospital’s Fruit and Vegetables Prescription Program since they began five years ago.

At 93, she credits the program — through which doctors prescribe diet education as a treatment for chronic diseases such as obesity, diabetes and high blood pressure — with helping her manage her health.

“I have stage-five kidney disease. My next step is dialysis,” McAtee said. “I have controlled this through my diet, which is very important to me, and that’s the other reason I pay particular attention to everything I eat.”

Come month’s end, the class may not exist.

The class is led for free by educators who are part of the federally funded SNAP-Education program, which partners with more than 33,000 organizations nationwide to promote healthy eating, physical activity, and better food access. In Michigan, two agencies — Michigan State University Extension and the Michigan Fitness Foundation — operate SNAP-Ed programs in places such as schools, senior centers, and food pantries.

Funding cuts

Congress slashed funding for SNAP-Ed in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act earlier this year. More than 120 MSU Extension health educators will lose their jobs across Michigan this month, and the Michigan Fitness Foundation is in the process of sunsetting some of its programs into next year.

Michigan Congressman Jack Bergman, who supported the cuts in May, did not respond to a request for comment. In an email to constituents, he said that, while the SNAP-Ed initiative was “commendable,” the results were disappointing, citing rising childhood obesity rates. According to the Ballard Center for Social Impact, the rate of childhood obesity has tripled since the 1970s.

Sarah Eichberger, a Traverse City SNAP-Ed educator, disagreed that that was proof SNAP-Ed programs failed. Rather, she said, that highlights how large the American health crisis really is.

“How can you now say one underfunded federal nutrition program is responsible for not making our entire country healthy?” Eichberger said. “We live in a country where there are systems and structures that prevent people from being healthy.”

Michigan’s share of the SNAP-Ed budget

Of the SNAP-Ed budget — $536 million in fiscal year 2025 — Michigan received $27 million and relied on that funding more than any other state of its size — with only California, New York and Pennsylvania receiving more funding.

In 2024, the MSU Extension’s SNAP-Ed program reached more than 115,000 people across Michigan, with national SNAP-Ed outreach serving millions of low-income Americans.

Much of the work done by SNAP-Ed, according to Eichberger, is behind the scenes, like securing grants for its 1,000 community partners. Those partnerships allowed the program to stretch its budget further and reach more people.

How can you now say one underfunded federal nutrition program is responsible for not making our entire country healthy? We live in a country where there are systems and structures that prevent people from being healthy.

—SNAP-Ed educator Sarah Eichberger

Two years ago, Eichberger helped launch a program to deliver boxes of locally grown fruits and vegetables to daycares across 32 counties. That initiative, made possible through outside grants, relied on the network of SNAP-Ed staff working directly with child care providers to offer expertise and support.

The loss of SNAP-Ed, Eichberg said, is not just health and nutrition classes going away. It’s the loss of an entire network of people and partnerships working to create healthy systems and programs.

Making America healthy 

While the Trump administration’s Make America Healthy Again movement — which has focused on banning red food dyes and encouraged the fast food restaurant Steak ‘n Shake to switch from frying its food in seed oil to beef tallow — has made headlines, Eichberger said the work SNAP-Ed does to promote a healthy diet of fresh fruit and vegetables along with exercise is even more important.

“If you can get people to be healthier, if you can prevent Type 2 diabetes, heart disease… that’s so much more impactful than some of these things the conversation has been moving more towards,” said Eichberger.

Loss of funding, loss of access

The loss of SNAP-Ed is part of a larger trend of cuts to public health funding. That includes increased work requirements for Medicaid and cuts to SNAP’s food assistance program through the Big, Beautiful Bill, along with long enough delays in US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funding that local agencies have had to lay off staff.

Eichberger worries about the long-term effects, especially as fewer people will have access to food stamps and health care coverage.

“Less people are going to be able to access food stamps. There’ll be less access (to) health care coverage,” Eichberger said. “We haven’t fully seen the impact yet… but it will be significant.”

Hopes for new funding

Patti Tibaldi, the project manager for SNAP-Ed at Traverse City Area Public Schools through the Michigan Fitness Foundation, had to let go of four staff members when funding was cut earlier this year. However, she may be able to bring them back if new funding becomes available.

The US Department of Agriculture recently opened a new grant for SNAP-Ed programs, although with reduced funding. The grant is meant to sunset the program, Tibaldi said, and will only last until next summer. Many organizations, Tibaldi said, have chosen not to pursue it.

For now, Tibaldi and the few remaining SNAP-Ed programs are waiting to find out about that USDA grant — and see if they have just one year left.

“We’re going to try to hang in there — whatever little thing we can do to help these families and the kids,” said Tibaldi. “I think it’s very shortsighted to lose the focus on how important it is for kids and families to learn healthy habits.”

This reporting is made possible by the Northern Michigan Journalism Collaborative, a project led by Interlochen Public Radio and Bridge Michigan, and funded by Press Forward Northern Michigan.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Senate Republicans on Tuesday advanced President Donald Trump’s request to cancel some $9 billion in previously approved spending, overcoming concerns from some lawmakers about what the rescissions could mean for impoverished people around the globe and for public radio and television stations in their home states.

The Senate vote was 50-50, with Vice President JD Vance breaking the tie.

A final vote in the Senate could occur as early as Wednesday. The bill would then return to the House for another vote before it would go to Trump’s desk for his signature before a Friday deadline.

Republicans winnowed down the president’s request by taking out his proposed $400 million cut to a program known as PEPFAR. That change increased the prospects for the bill’s passage. The politically popular program is credited with saving millions of lives since its creation under then-President George W. Bush to combat HIV/AIDS.

The president is also looking to claw back money for foreign aid programs targeted by his Department of Government Efficiency and for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

“When you’ve got a $36 trillion debt, we have to do something to get spending under control,” said Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D.

The White House tries to win over skeptics

Republicans met with Russ Vought, the director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, during their weekly conference luncheon as the White House worked to address their concerns. He fielded about 20 questions from senators.

The White House campaign to win over potential holdouts had some success. Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D., tweeted that he would vote to support the measure after working with the administration to “find Green New Deal money that could be reallocated to continue grants to tribal radio stations without interruption.”

Some senators worried that the cuts to public media could decimate many of the 1,500 local radio and television stations around the country that rely on some federal funding to operate. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting distributes more than 70% of its funding to those stations.

Maine Sen. Susan Collins, the Republican chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said she was particularly concerned about a lack of specifics from the White House.

“The rescissions package has a big problem — nobody really knows what program reductions are in it,” Collins said. “That isn’t because we haven’t had time to review the bill. Instead, the problem is that OMB has never provided the details that would normally be part of this process.”

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, said she didn’t want the Senate to be going through numerous rounds of rescissions.

“We are lawmakers. We should be legislating,” Murkowski said. “What we’re getting now is a direction from the White House and being told: ‘This is the priority and we want you to execute on it. We’ll be back with you with another round.’ I don’t accept that.”

Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., Collins and Murkowski joined with Democrats in voting against the Senate taking up the measure.

McConnell said he wanted to make clear he didn’t have any problem with reducing spending, but agreed with Collins that lawmakers didn’t have enough details from the White House.

“They would like a blank check is what they would like. And I don’t think that’s appropriate,” McConnell said.

But the large majority of Republicans were supportive of Trump’s request.

“This bill is a first step in a long but necessary fight to put our nation’s fiscal house in order,” said Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo.

Democrats warn of the consequences

Democrats warned that it’s absurd to expect them to work with Republicans on bipartisan spending measures if Republicans turn around a few months later and use their majority to cut the parts they don’t like.

“It shreds the appropriations process,” said Sen. Angus King, an independent from Maine who caucuses with Democrats. “The Appropriations Committee, and indeed this body, becomes a rubber stamp for whatever the administration wants.”

Democratic leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said that tens of millions of Americans rely on local public radio and television stations for local news, weather alerts and educational programs. He warned that many could lose access to that information because of the rescissions.

“And these cuts couldn’t come at a worse time,” Schumer said. “The floods in Texas remind us that speedy alerts and up-to-the-minute forecasts can mean the difference between life and death.”

Democrats also scoffed at the GOP’s stated motivation for taking up the bill. The amount of savings pales compared to the $3.4 trillion in projected deficits over the next decade that Republicans put in motion in passing Trump’s big tax and spending cut bill two weeks ago.

“Now, Republicans are pretending they are concerned about the debt,” said Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash. “So concerned that they need to shut down local radio stations, so concerned they are going to cut off ‘Sesame Street.’ … The idea that that is about balancing the debt is laughable.”

What’s ahead in the Senate

With Republicans providing enough votes to take up the bill, it sets up the potential for 10 hours of debate plus votes on scores of potentially thorny amendments in what is known as a vote-a-rama. The House has already shown its support for the president’s request with a mostly party line 214-212 vote, but since the Senate is amending the bill, it will have to go back to the House for another vote.

Republicans who vote against the measure also face the prospect of incurring Trump’s wrath. He has issued a warning on his social media site directly aimed at individual Senate Republicans who may be considering voting against the rescissions package. He said it was important that all Republicans adhere to the bill and in particular defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

“Any Republican that votes to allow this monstrosity to continue broadcasting will not have my support or Endorsement,” he said.

–Reporting by Kevin Freking, The Associated Press. Congressional correspondent Lisa Mascaro and staff writers Mary Clare Jalonick and Stephen Groves contributed.

Democrats and Republicans on the Senate Appropriations Committee pushed back against the Trump administration’s bid to kill $9 billion in federal funding that Congress already has approved for public broadcasting and international aid programs.

In President Trump’s request to Congress, sent last month, he justified the cuts because the targeted foreign aid programs were “antithetical to American interests,” and because “[f]ederal spending on [the Corporation for Public Broadcasting] subsidizes a public media system that is politically biased and is an unnecessary expense to the taxpayer.”

In a hearing Wednesday, Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins, who chairs the committee, noted in the case of public broadcasting that 70% of the federal dollars targeted for rescission support local programming and emergency communications. She acknowledged concerns about NPR’s news coverage, which she said “for years has had a discernibly partisan bent.”

“There are, however, more targeted approaches to addressing that bias [at NPR] than rescinding all funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting,” Collins said.

In response to a later question, Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought testified that emergency broadcasting services funded by CPB would be safe. He also argued that because the CPB rescission doesn’t apply to the current fiscal year, local stations would have “ample time to adjust” and “they should be more judicious” about whom they pay for content.

Upon further questioning by Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who has come out against the public broadcasting cuts, Vought committed to working with her on funding for rural stations. Yet he reiterated that Republicans have spent years trying to address public funding of content.

Murkowski later gave what she described as
“a little bit of a bird’s eye view” of the public radio situation in Alaska, which includes rural stations that receive up to 70% of their funding from the federal government. She went on to detail the vital services the station supply. “[A]lmost to a number, they’re saying that they will go under if public broadcasting funds are no longer available to them,” she said.

The vast majority of the $9.4 billion in cuts requested by the White House are to foreign aid programs addressing global public health, international disaster assistance and hunger relief.

But the package also includes a cut of nearly $1.1 billion in funding for 2026 and 2027 for CPB. The private nonprofit sends most of that money to local public television and radio stations across the country. PBS receives about 15% of its annual revenue through CPB, while NPR gets about 1% directly. Indirectly, NPR also receives some of the money going to member stations, who pay the network to air its programs.

The rescissions measure narrowly passed the House earlier this month, 214 to 212, with two key Republican lawmakers switching their votes from “no” to “yes” at the last minute to get it over the finish line. The House held a hearing earlier this year at which many Republicans accused PBS and NPR of being woke and biased against conservative viewpoints.

On Wednesday, Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, the panel’s top Democrat, questioned the legality of the White House’s request. Under the 1974 Impoundment Control Act, both chambers of Congress must approve such a request by a simple majority within 45 days of its submission—in this case, by July 18.

The cuts to CPB would “rip away funding that supports over 1500 local public TV and radio stations,” Murray said.

“Rural communities will be the hardest hit, not to mention our kids,” she said, adding that the cuts threaten “free, high-quality programming that is thoughtfully developed to get our kids thinking and to grow their curiosity.”

NPR in a statement said: “There is no substitute for the direct support and nationwide infrastructure and services funded by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting that enable these noncommercial stations to serve their communities.” In a statement after the House vote this month, PBS President and CEO Paula Kerger said: “Our work is only possible because of the bipartisan support we have always received from Congress, support we have earned by providing services that cannot be replaced by commercial media.”

Reporting by Scott Neuman, NPR

Federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) is the focus of a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing on Wednesday. 

The publicly-funded nonprofit, which provides funding to PBS, NPR and its affiliates like WDET, would lose $1.1 billion — two years’ worth of funding that has already been approved by Congress — if the bill passed by the House earlier this month gets Senate approval. It would also rescind more than $8 billion in funding for foreign aid programs addressing global public health, international disaster assistance and hunger relief.

That bill passed in the House by a margin of 214 to 212, with four Republicans crossing the aisle to vote against the package. There were also four Democrats and two Republicans who did not vote on the bill at all.

President Donald Trump has already signed an executive order to eliminate CPB funding, claiming all public media is biased, but the Rescissions Act of 2025 would go beyond that, revoking funding already approved by Congress.

Today on The Metro, we break down what it would mean for public media organizations like WDET if the legislation gets Congressional approval.

Use the media player above to hear the full conversation.

Listen to The Metro weekdays from 10 a.m. to noon ET on 101.9 FM and streaming on-demand.

More stories from The Metro