The Dictatorship
How Trump is exploiting the looming food stamps crisis
As the federal government shutdown enters its third week with no end in sight, a major crisis looms on the horizon: The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, also known as food stamps, will face a huge funding problem as of the beginning of November.
The New York Times reports that the Agriculture Department warned in a letter to state agencies last week that due to the shutdown the federal government would have “insufficient funds” for the program on which more than 40 million low-income Americans rely for food. Brooke Rollins, the agriculture secretary, told reporters on Thursday that “we’re going to run out of money in two weeks.”
The Trump administration’s tactical approach could result in a greater number of people struggling to put food on their table in November.
But the Trump administration is painting a dire black-and-white picture of funding falling off a cliff that is misleading; policy experts say that the Agriculture Department has a significant amount of money for an emergency of this kind.
To be clear, there are legitimate concerns about how the department is going to cover the entire bill for SNAP benefits for November. But it appears the Trump administration is framing the funding problem as catastrophic as a tool to apply more pressure on Democrats to drop its health care demands and end the government shutdown.
Rollins has used the approaching funding shortfall to blame Democrats for a potential humanitarian crisis. “Because of the Democrat shutdown, there are not enough funds to provide SNAP for 40 million Americans come Nov 1,” the agriculture secretary posted on X last week. “Democrats are putting free healthcare for illegal aliens and their political agenda ahead of food security for American families. Shameful.”
Rollins’ comment about “free health care for illegal aliens” is a nonsensical Republican talking point that has been debunked. And while it’s true that SNAP faces funding problems, the Agriculture Department also has a special pot of cash to draw from for this situation: SNAP has a contingency fund of about $6 billion. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, more than $5 billion of that fund should be available for use toward SNAP benefits, which would cover close to two-thirds of the roughly $8 billion required to pay out November’s SNAP benefits.

CBPP also pointed out that the agriculture secretary has the discretion to transfer funds among the department’s different nutrition programs — an authority it used to inject $300 million in tariff revenue earlier in the month into the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (also known as WIC) to prevent disruption to the program. As my colleague Hayes Brown pointed out last week, that move “helped inoculate the White House politically against claims that it didn’t care about mothers of newborns going hungry.” (Brown also described the funding transfer as legally questionable — but the point is that the Trump administration clearly considers the maneuver legitimate and could attempt to repeat it.)
“USDA should use its discretion to transfer whatever amount possible to augment the SNAP contingency funding using the same mechanism as it used for WIC, or any other available legal authority, and come as close as possible to funding full November SNAP benefits,” CBPP’s Dottie Rosenbaum and Katie Bergh wrote in their analysis.
What’s concerning at the moment is that the Trump administration is declining to publicly outline any clear agenda to tap into contingency funds or transfer funds from other nutrition assistance programs for SNAP. That could be part of a political strategy to make the situation look as daunting as possible so as to apply more pressure to Democrats to see if they flinch; Democrats are supposed to be champions of assistance to the poor — maybe they’ll back down out of fear of looking like they’re reneging on their principles.
At the same time, if the Trump administration was concerned enough with the optics of WIC to find a creative way to inject more money into it, then a similar concern might compel them tap into alternative funds to avert a total SNAP disaster at the last second, if needed. But the problem with the “wait until the last second” strategy is that it makes it more likely that the money goes out late to SNAP beneficiaries in November, because it could delay the multi-step process through which states and SNAP card processors coordinate to get funds on SNAP beneficiaries’ cards for purchasing food. In other words, the Trump administration’s tactical approach could result in a greater number of people struggling to put food on their table in November.
Politically speaking, it’s hard to see a “winner” here — with polling suggesting both parties are taking a hit over the shutdown, it would seem that delays or reduced funding for SNAP could cause both parties to come off badly to the American public.
It’s upsetting to see something as important as SNAP benefits get turned into a political football. It’s a lifeline for tens of millions of Americans. If the Trump administration accepted Democrats’ wholly reasonable demands to keep Obamacare subsidies from expiring, then they wouldn’t even be at risk.
Zeeshan Aleem is a writer and editor for BLN Daily. Previously, he worked at Vox, HuffPost and Blue Light News, and he has also been published in, among other places, The New York Times, The Atlantic, The Nation, and The Intercept. You can sign up for his free politics newsletter here.
The Dictatorship
Justice Jackson keeps calling out what she sees as needless Supreme Court interventions
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson continues to speak out when she believes her colleagues are misusing their power. The latest example came Monday, when the Biden appointee dissented from a Supreme Court ruling in favor of law enforcement in a Fourth Amendment case.
In District of Columbia v. R.W.the high court majority disagreed with a ruling from D.C.’s appeals court that said a police officer violated the amendment by stopping a person without reasonable suspicion. In an unsigned through the court opinion, the justices said the D.C. court failed to properly consider the “totality of the circumstances.” The justices summarily reversed the lower court.
Jackson, however, saw the maneuver by her colleagues as heavy-handed.
In her dissent, she wrote that if the court’s intervention “reflects disapproval” of the D.C. court’s “assessment of which particular facts to weigh and to what extent, I cannot fathom why that kind of factbound determination warranted correction by this Court.” She deemed the move “not a worthy accomplishment for the unusual step of summary reversal.”
A notation at the end of the majority’s opinion said that Justice Sonia Sotomayor would have denied D.C.’s petition for high court review, but she didn’t join Jackson’s dissent or write her own to elaborate.
Jackson’s dissent follows a lecture she gave last week at Yale Law School in which she criticized what she saw as her colleagues’ disrespect of lower courts’ work.
Monday’s ruling appeared among several high court actions on a 25-page order lista routine document containing the latest action on pending appeals. The list is mostly unexplained denials of petitions for review, but sometimes it contains opinions and justices writing separately to explain themselves.
In another case on the list, Sotomayor, Jackson and the court’s third Democratic-appointed justice, Elena Kagan, all noted their dissent from the majority’s unexplained summary reversal in favor of law enforcement in a qualified immunity case.
It takes four justices to grant review of a petition. That simple math underscores the lack of power wielded by the three Democratic appointees, especially on the most contentious issues.
On that note, one of the new cases the court took up on Monday involves its latest foray into religion in public life, which the religious side has been winning at the court. The new case is an appeal from Catholic preschools in Colorado that want public funding while still admitting, as they wrote in their petition“only families who support Catholic beliefs, including on sex and gender.” The case will be heard in the next court term that starts in October.
Jordan Rubin is the Deadline: Legal Blog writer. He was a prosecutor for the New York County District Attorney’s Office in Manhattan and is the author of “Bizarro,” a book about the secret war on synthetic drugs. Before he joined MS NOW, he was a legal reporter for Bloomberg Law.
The Dictatorship
The White House’s personal, financial and diplomatic lines keep blurring
About a month ago, when Donald Trump spoke at a conference for Saudi Arabia’s sovereign investment fund, it was hard not to notice the complexities of the circumstances. On the one hand, Riyadh has helped steer the White House’s policy in Iran. On the other hand, the president’s son-in-law, having already received billions of dollars from Saudi Arabia, recently turned to the Middle Eastern country for more money for his private investment firm.
All the while, Saudi officials remain focused on private dealings with Trump’s family business, as the Republican extended his public support to the sovereign investment fund, ignored Pentagon concerns about selling F-35 fighter jets to Saudi Arabia and designated Saudi Arabia a “major non-NATO ally” as part of a new security agreement.
The trouble is, it’s not just the Saudis.
The New York Times reported on wealthy interests in Syria with ambitions plans for the nation’s future who needed the U.S. to drop the economic sanctions that crippled the country during Bashar al-Assad’s reign. One Syrian-born businessman, Mohamad Al-Khayyat, secured a meeting with Republican Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina, who recommended that plans for a luxury golf course carry the Trump Organization brand as a way of getting the American president’s attention.
The Times’ report, which has not been independently verified by MS NOW, added that the businessman was way ahead of the congressman. He’d already planned to propose a Trump-branded resort. The same businessman’s brothers, who enjoy the backing of Thomas Barrack, the American president’s special envoy to Syria, were also negotiating a real estate partnership with Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner.
The Times summarized the broader context nicely:
Such a mixing of personal and diplomatic affairs has long been the norm in Middle Eastern nations, where a small set of players have historically run, and profited from, their dominant role in society. But it has become the way Washington operates in Mr. Trump’s second term, too.
Business discussions involving the president’s family … are consistently blurred with important policy decisions or consequential nation-to-nation negotiations.
Not to put too fine a point on this, but developments like these aren’t supposed to happen in the U.S. If a foreign country wants a change in federal economic sanctions, it’s supposed to go through proper diplomatic and economic channels as part of a formal process to prevent corruption and potential conflicts of interests.
In 2026, that model has been torn down — and replaced with what the Times described as “a warped system of executive patronage,” which is awfully tough to defend.
The article added:
Mohamad Al-Khayyat returned to Washington late last year toting a special stone celebrating the proposed golf course, carved with the Trump family emblem. He presented it to Mr. Wilson in his Capitol Hill office to deliver to the White House. Mr. Al-Khayyat then joined meetings with other lawmakers to push the sanctions repeal.
Weeks later, legislation for a permanent repeal won approval in Congress and was signed into law by Mr. Trump in late December.
This was no doubt noticed by officials and monied interests elsewhere, sending a clear signal about how to interact with the U.S. government (at least until January 2029).
Steve Benen is a producer for “The Rachel Maddow Show,” the editor of MaddowBlog and an MS NOW political contributor. He’s also the bestselling author of “Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans’ War on the Recent Past.”
The Dictatorship
Monday’s Campaign Round-Up, 4.20.26: Obama makes one last pitch ahead of Virginia race
Today’s installment of campaign-related news items from across the country.
* This week’s biggest election is in Virginia, where voters will decide whether to advance a Democratic redistricting effort. Ahead of Tuesday’s balloting, Barack Obama filmed one last pitch to the electorate in the commonwealth.
* With former Rep. Eric Swalwell out of California’s gubernatorial race, billionaire Tom Steyer is spending heavily to claim the front-runner slot. The Associated Press reported“Data compiled by advertising tracker AdImpact show Steyer has spent or booked over $115 million in ads for broadcast TV, cable and radio — nearly 30 times the amount of his nearest Democratic rival.”
* On a related note, the California Teachers Association, which had backed Swalwell, threw its support behind Steyer’s bid last week.
* When Donald Trump held an event in Nevada last week, many watched to see whether Joe Lombardo, the state’s Republican governor who is facing a tough re-election fight in the fall, appeared at the gathering. He did notthough Lt. Gov. Stavros Anthony spoke at the event.
* In Pennsylvania, Democratic Sen. John Fetterman isn’t up for re-election until 2028, but Punchbowl News asked every other Democratic member of the state’s congressional delegation whether the incumbent senator should run for a second term as a Democrat. Not one said he should.
* Jack Daly, a political operative who pleaded guilty in 2023 to defrauding thousands of conservative political donors, has lost some Republican clients of late, but the National Republican Senatorial Committee has continued to use the services of Daly’s firm.
* And in Tennessee, Republican Rep. Andy Ogles appears to be running for re-election, though his fundraising is badly lacking: As of the end of March, the far-right incumbent only had around $85,000 cash on handwhich lags his GOP primary opponent, former Tennessee Agriculture Commissioner Charlie Hatcher, who has around $150,000 in his campaign account.
Steve Benen is a producer for “The Rachel Maddow Show,” the editor of MaddowBlog and an MS NOW political contributor. He’s also the bestselling author of “Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans’ War on the Recent Past.”
-
Politics1 year agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
Politics1 year agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
Uncategorized1 year ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
Politics1 year agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
The Dictatorship7 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words
-
The Josh Fourrier Show1 year agoDOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?











