Trump The AUTHORITARIAN
And Mike Johnson calls the millions who will protest tomorrow....
"Marxists, the socialists, the antifa advocates, the anarchists, and the pro-Hamas wing"
But that's not inciting or questionable at all? Yeah we've all got it, only if a Democrat utters wordsAP-NORC POLL - Trump Approval
Approve: 37% (-2)
Disapprove: 61% (+1)
Trump's lowest second-term approval
——
Trump's net approval
Isr/Palest. conflict: -2 (was -23)
Immigration: -14 (new low)
Economy: -26 (new low)
Healthcare: -36 (new low)
——
Fav-unfav
GOP: 40-51 (-11)
Dems: 32-58 (-26)
——The enemy of the people, Donald Trump has just asked the Supreme Court to let him be the Supreme Dictator by giving him absolute authority to send troops to ANY part of America of ANY reason whatsoever that he may create out of whole cloth.
Chances are high the conservatives will acquiesce and turn America over to Donald Trump.Jesus H. Christ!!!!! We will be in total fascists mode if they approve his request.
You got that right and MAUGA is wildly cheering about it (in there echo chambers)
If the Supreme Court sanctions this, how will this not end in Civil War?
I wonder who, when push comes to shove, each state's national guard is loyal to: 1) the State and the U.S. Constitution or 2) Donald, the enemy of the people, Trump and MAUGA?
Trump commuted George Santos sentence.... He isn’t even trying to hide the fact that the DOJ is completely politicized and the rule of law no longer applies federally.... Right wingers have lost the ability to talk about the rule of law...
Santos is the appetizer. Ghislaine is next.Justice Barrett has ordered Illinois officials to respond by Monday at 5PM ET, BUT she did not order the immediate administrative stay the Trump admin asked for.
This is a huge test for the legitimacy of the Supreme Court. There is zero basis to intervene here. The District Court made factual findings, and they are unassailable in a pretrial appeal unless clearly erroneous. If SCOTUS intervenes for Trump, it is a failed institution...I wonder how the isolationist MAUGA is handling Trump putting CIA boots on the ground in Venezuela and threatening to put military boots on the ground there? Not well, I hope as Trump edges closer to starting a war.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/10/18/politics … a-militarySomewhere in one of these forums, Ken disbelieved Willowarbor's observation that thousands of protest occurred yesterday across America to protest the anointment by the Supreme Court and MAUGA of Trump as King.
The map in this article shows where they occurred. Hell, even 20 or 30 people showed up in my tiny, ruby red rural town of Keystone Heights, Florida. That should tell you something of how afraid people are of Trump's dictatorship.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/10/17/us/no-ki … ests-trumpTrump: "They came in to see me and I said, 'You know, I think the US should own 10 percent of your company.' And they gave me 10 percent!"
LOL....Tell me about the type of government that takes over private corporations
https://x.com/atrupar/status/1979917646930788734"Trump’s response to ‘No Kings’ marches only proved the protesters’ point"
In June, 5 million Americans protested the self-coronation of Donald Trump as Americas first King. He didn't get the word as he Trolls American on his UnTruth Social platform. So, 7 million Americans showed up Saturday across 2,700 cities to spread the message that America does not want a dictator.
The only violence was from MAGA Right-Wing agitators brandishing guns, stealing flags, and pushing people down to the ground.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/10/20/politics … a-analysisTrump says California will receive zero dollars from the federal government:
"California is a big culprit. I mean, California, they're out of control. And we're not going to pay California”
He is fomenting secession...
So should California hang on to its tax dollars?
I think a shithole red states survive only through the graces, the generosity of big blue cities and states LOL...
But please tell me more about states rights and small government and all that BS....
https://x.com/SpencerHakimian/status/19 … 7780938144So should California hang on to its tax dollars?
I like that solution, what can Trump do about that?if Trump wants to escalate, they absolutely should, in my opinion. Any state that Trump is attacking with his Gestapo and terrorizing its citizens should hold back their dollars.
Not surprising at all...
DOJ WHISTLEBLOWER: “I wouldn’t be abiding by my oath if I stayed silent right now.”
He says Trump’s DOJ wanted him to lie (about Kilmar being a gang member & terrorist, etc…) — and fired him when he wouldn’t....
https://x.com/TheTNHoller/status/1980314365564973542This would be the most corrupt act in presidential history. No complicated schemes, no outside actors, just a straight up looting of the taxpayers to put $230 million in Trump's pocket....
UNBELIEVABLE
Trump is generously willing to settle his lawsuit against the government to allow taxpayers to pay him $230 million. The negotiators on behalf of the taxpayers representing DOJ are his former lawyers.... AGAIN, UNBELIEVABLE
The worst ethics scandal thus far ... HE IS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE SUIT
We've hit the farce stage...the Oval Office is now plaintiff, defendant, judge, and cashier in one
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/21/us/p … ation.htmlI did a quick check and found there is no way to stop Trump from the greatest GRIFT in history.. As a taxpayer, I can't stop it even though it is partly my money. The Treasury could stop it, but it is run by a Trump lackey. DOIJ could stop it, but it to is led by a woman who will lay down for Trump and do whatever he says. The House MIGHT be able to do it, but that is controlled by Trump's supplicants and spineless wimps as well.
MAUGA won't object because they are so under his spell that anything he does is OK with them.
What a sick world we live in.
Without the authority to do so, Trump is demolishing the entire East Wing of the White House. First he paved over the Rose garden and installed gaudy gold plaques all over the oval office and now this... Turning the White House into a tacky Mar-A-Lago replica. But oh yes a ballroom fit for a queen... While the rest of us suffer
LET THEM EAT CAKEArizona Atty General files lawsuit seeking court to expedite swearing-in of Rep-elect Adelita Grijalva (D-AZ)
Suit seeks judgment stating if Speaker Johnson hasn't administered oath, oath may be administered by any person authorized to administer oaths...
Why is Mike dragging his feet? She's the 218th signature for the discharge position to release the Epstein files.
LETS GOA prime minister has now been identified as one of the rapists - not by name, unfortunately.
I am going to buy her book.
"Republicans are ridiculing ‘No Kings.’ A striking new poll shows Americans aren’t laughing"
A survey by the Public Religion Research Institute asked a simple question: "Do you think Trump is a Dictator or not" 56% of respondents said YES. But if you remove the MAGA element who will always say NO, then the percent of non-MAGA aligned Americans who think Trump is a dictator rises to a WHOPPING 76% to 85% of Americans believe Trump is an authoritarian dictator.
So, come on Trump supporters, smell the roses and realize your view of Trump is wrong. Join us in the world of reality.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/10/22/politics … p-analysisTrump keeps pushing his authoritarian BS.... At some point it's going to be time to cut y'all loose...
Now THAT is an interesting analysis. Sort of says Republicans contribute very little to America and just live off its welfare.
Trump is a pathological liar. Not one word he says can be believed except when he promises to do cruel things to other Americans....
Trump...."It won’t interfere with the current building. It won’t be. It’ll be near it but not touching it — and pays total respect to the existing building, which I’m the biggest fan of. It’s my favorite. It’s my favorite place. I love it.”
https://x.com/MsMalarkey24/status/1980361202061684983Trump is like an Alpha Male Dog. He has to leave his mark no matter where he goes. He is lifting his leg and pe*ing on the white house right now, He could care less that it is the people's house, not his. He has already cemented in the rose garden with his name on a plaque where the rose garden used to be.
The New York Times reported that Trump made two claims prior to his reelection last year claiming that his rights were violated. The first claim, from 2023, references the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. His second claim referred to the 2022 FBI raid at his Mar-a-Lago estate in which investigators discovered boxes of classified documents stored haphazardly and accessible to Mar-a-Lago members.
"They probably owe me a lot of money, but if I get money from our country, I’ll probably do something nice with it, like give it to charity or give it to the White House while we restore the White House," Trump told reporters on Tuesday.
"As you know, the ballroom is under construction," he continued. "They’ve been trying to get it for 150 years, and I think it’s going to be fantastic. But we’ll see what happens."
Even though the DOJ is a part of the executive branch, Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution expressly gives Congress the power of the purse, meaning if the DOJ were to pay Trump hundreds of millions of dollars it would likely have to first be appropriated by Congress. There is currently no legislation that has been filed allowing for the DOJ to give $230 million to the president. But then again, Trump doesn't care about laws or follow the rules. He loves to push the envelope to see how far he can go.
I want some accountability as to who is paying for the destruction of the White House... The receipts should be made public. Who wrote the check for the demolition that's currently going on?
Where is the oversight? Americans do not want to pay for some tacky mar a lardo style ballroom...
Democrats are going to be really busy in 2026.... Ripping the lid off of this corrupt regime.The White House was originally intended to be a symbol of simplicity, modesty, and humility, a home of the presidential family who were to be “of the people.” Trump is turning it into an ostentatious, gold leafed, overbuilt symbol of the ugly American…loud, fat, pretentious, and above the people....
Americans health care premiums are going to double or triple and some people will die because they’ll lose access to care entirely but at least Trump will have a tacky new $300M ballroom!
Insane. Who asked for this.The first thing the next president needs to do is replant the Rose Garden starting with ripping up Trump's self-aggrandizing plaque.
How do I know they will deploy troops to democratic districts before an election to suppress the vote and try to incite violence?
THEY TOLD US.
Hegseth doesn't dispute the existence of a memo planning for the establishment of a "National Guard response force that's gonna be trained in crowd control and civil unrest and deployed in all 50 states by April 2026."
https://x.com/atrupar/status/1981459814019367137Polling from Economist/YouGov:
Trump's approval rating has fallen to -18%, the lowest it has EVER been
61% of Americans now say the country is off on the wrong track
57% say the economy is getting worse
Since January, Trump approval has tanked on key issues
Donald Trump’s approval rating | The Economist https://share.google/WnZZdfiJxE3hT53SXWelcome aboard, Joel, nice to see a new face.
Thank you, much appreciated. I have visited the site often and browse the forums regularly. I would have to say I feel as much of an interloper as I had feared.
Interlope away, we can always use fresh eyes.
That is the widest gap ever. Biden didn't even come close to being that disliked?
Now, THIS is what I call “fighting fire with fire”!
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/californ … 0501ac12e8
Still love this song, it is so appropo…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=deskt … 5&t=0sNot sure where the other posts on this terrorist plot are, but this forum seems appropriate. I commented then that it is SAD I can't believe what the FBI directed tweeted about the operation and asked for corroborating evidence he was being truthful.
We finally have that although Patel just couldn't help himself from a little puffery to satisfy his ego. It turns out the FBI has built a pretty good case against three people; they intimate the LGBTQ+ community might have been the target (given all the hate speech about them from the right, that would not be surprising).
Indeed it does seem to have an ISIS connection (who are conservatives in this story, not liberal). Where does the puffery come in? When Patel claimed "multiple", which implies "many" people were arrested even though it was only two.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/04/us/fbi-i … orist-plotTrump now says he will not pay food stamps in November, even though his admin told a court yesterday it would make partial payments. The benefits are once again in jeopardy, as officials are back at court, seeking to force the release of full aid....
Cruelty really is the point...Normally, I would say "Unbelievable" but since we are talking about the enemy of the people - Trump - it is very believable!.
From UnTruth Social: "“SNAP BENEFITS, … will be given only when the Radical Left Democrats open up government, which they can easily do, and not before!”
CBS News
+2
BostonGlobe.com
+2
Too bad the judges can't find him in contempt of court.
Fall out from Trump being on the War Path -
Venezuela recently requested military equipment, including drones, from Iran amid heightened tensions between Venezuela and the United States, according to internal US government documents obtained by The Washington Post.
So Trump is getting our enemies to forge closer ties with each other and our friends to go find help from our enemies. Great Job Trump!‘0ne in eight Americans relies on SNAP to help make ends meet, a population that includes a large portion of children and seniors as well as parents hovering near the poverty line despite working full-time. Many of the beneficiaries live in Republican districts and voted for Donald Trump in the 2024 presidential election, which was dominated by cost-of-living issues. A year later, members of Congress are hearing emotional tales of mothers who are planning to skip meals so their children can eat, minimum-wage workers who are forced to rely on the kindness of strangers for sustenance, and families who are having to choose which bills to forgo in order to buy a little food.”
I can’t really feel sorry for the MAGA voters who are going to be the most affected by all of this. They sort of, kind of, asked for it. Actually believing that that tyrannical clown gave so much as a rats ass about this constituency..I think this comment is off base when it comes to which states actually receive the most SNAP benefits. The largest SNAP payouts go to states like California, New York, Texas, and Florida, many of which are reliably Democratic or mixed, not predominantly Trump-supporting “MAGA” districts. While it’s true that SNAP helps millions of Americans, including children and seniors, the idea that Trump voters are the primary recipients is misleading. The data show that the states with the highest total SNAP spending are not necessarily Republican strongholds, so framing this as some kind of “self-inflicted” problem for MAGA supporters doesn’t match the numbers.
It’s important to separate political narratives from actual data—many families in both red and blue areas rely on SNAP, but the top-dollar beneficiaries live in states that aren’t predominantly MAGA.
Here are the top states by total SNAP benefit spending (or strongly indicative of it) based on recent data.
Rank State Approximate total SNAP benefits / monthly payout
1 California ~ $1.045 billion per month in SNAP payouts.
Livability.com
2 New York ~ $647 million per month.
SmartAsset
3 Texas ~ $614 million per month.
SmartAsset
4 Florida ~ $535 million per month.
SmartAsset
5 Illinois Total benefits ~ $4,469 million (~$4.47 billion annually) in recent data.
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
6 Pennsylvania ~ $4,243 million (~$4.24 billion annually) in recent data.
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
7 Michigan ~ $3,061 million (~$3.06 billion annually) in recent data.
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
8 Georgia ~ $3,269 million (~$3.27 billion annually) in recent data.
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
9 Ohio ~ $3,159 million (~$3.16 billion annually) in recent data.
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
10 Louisiana ~ $1,902 million (~$1.90 billion annually) in recent data.
Center on Budget and Policy PrioritiesI appreciate your information here, my assessment comes from this Time Magazine article, see what you make of it? We are talking about 28-30 states…
https://time.com/7329733/snap-benefits- … -shutdown/
Didn't know much about SNAP until this past week...
Don't know much now...
But I was darned surprised to find out how much some people get from a discussion I had with a Publix manager about it... some people get $1,800 a month... that I found rather annoying to be honest.
Some people are getting everything handed to them for free... while others have to bust their ass to survive... that's a major contributing factor to why inflation is 30% over the last 4 years.Ken, do you really believe that 1 in 8 Americans are lazy, freeloading loafers? Many of the people “busting their asses to survive” are participants in programs like this. Who can live on $7.25 an hour, the national mininum wage since 2009?
Once again, fact less, and wrong. Nowhere in the U.S. does a person get $1,800 per month in SNAP benefits.
Also, the linkage to inflation is made up. Economically, there is no connection whatsoever between SNAP benefits and inflation UNLESS somehow providing money for people to buy food somehow lowers the supply of that food or increases the demand of that food above what supply can keep up with.
Ironically, cutting off SNAP benefits to hungry Americans that Trump and Republicans have done and want to do more of is DEFLATIONARY! Why? Because it lowers demand. And as all economists know, when demand falls, so do prices.
I see Trump's plan now, starve America into lower inflation. Brilliant. LOL.Trump food lines are back.
Farmers are going bankrupt again.
Record high government spending
Unemployment up
Supply lines clogged up by tariffs
Trump brought back his Covid pandemic WITHOUT a pandemic.Once again, fact less, and wrong. Nowhere in the U.S. does a person get $1,800 per month in SNAP benefits.
Geez, ESO, that is quite a fabrication. I am not on SNAP and i would berate my significant other for spending anywhere near that much on groceries for the month.Yeah, I know. But what can you do except keep telling the truth.
This is from Googles AI program. "The maximum SNAP benefit for a household of eleven people in the 48 contiguous United States and the District of Columbia is
$7,059 per month as of October 1, 2025. This amount is an estimation based on current data and the standard method of calculating benefits for larger households" Google is not known to be a conservative site. I do not live in the US so I can not verify either way. Your thoughts?Hi Doc, I did a bit of research. Here's what I turned up
SNAP benefits are based on household size, income, and expenses. As of October 2024, the maximum monthly SNAP allotments (before deductions) were roughly:
https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/recipient … hatgpt.com
Household Size Maximum Monthly Benefit (Lower 48 States)
1 person $291
2 people $535
3 people $766
4 people $973
5 people $1,155
6 people $1,386
7 people $1,532
8 people $1,751
Each additional person +$219
(Source: USDA Food and Nutrition Service, Fiscal Year 2024 SNAP Maximum Allotments.)
So, a large household (8+ people) receives around $1,800 per month in SNAP benefits.Those amounts are very much less than what Google is reporting. I am not a fan of AI since I see so many contradictions in my own field of expertise. Any conservative that looks up the amount of benefits on Google however is going to report those benefits.
I use ChatGPT, but when I used Google AI, this is what I got in answer to my question:
What is the Average SNAP benefit per person in America
The average Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefit per person in America is generally around $187 to $190 per month.
Here are a few figures from recent reports:
Most sources indicate the average monthly benefit is about $187 to $190 per person.
The average monthly benefit per household is often cited as around $332 to $356. Since the average SNAP household size is about 1.9 people, this is consistent with the per-person average.
It's important to remember that the specific amount an individual or household receives is calculated based on factors like:
Household income
Household size
Deductions (like shelter and medical expenses)
Maximum allowable allotment set by the USDA for that fiscal year.
The benefit amount can vary from person to person and state to state.
That lines up with what others are reporting here.
Yes, the household does but not the individual "person" as Ken said.
Thanks for the inquiry
You know, Doc, impartial information is rarely coming from a stated conservative source.
Until it is proven otherwise i am working with this regarding SNAP benefits for DC residents…
——
No, a single household in Washington D.C. cannot receive a SNAP benefit of over $7,000 per month. SNAP benefits are determined by household size and income, with a set maximum monthly allotment that is significantly lower than that amount.
For the period of October 1, 2025, through September 30, 2026, the maximum monthly SNAP benefits in Washington D.C. are:
1 person: $298
4 people: $994
8 people: $1,789
For each additional person, the maximum benefit increases by $218.
Even for very large households, the total benefit would not reach $7,000.
For example, a household of 20 people would have a maximum monthly allotment of $1,789 (for the first 8 people) plus 12 times $218 (for the additional 12 people), totaling $4,393 per month.
(Note: nowhere near $7000.00)
The average household in D.C. receives approximately $314 per month in SNAP benefits. The $7,000 figure mentioned in some search results refers to an estimated annual increase in health insurance costs in an unrelated context, not monthly SNAP benefits.
———-
The standard of around 300 per person seems rather consistent across the board.Sharlee reports similar numbers. I am not sure why Google is reporting numbers so far off.
So, the absolute maximum any Person in the US gets is $641.72. That is hardly the absurd figure of ~$1,800 that was claimed. And since it wasn't caveated, I can only assume that that figure was meant to be what person's in America on SNAP "normally" receive a month.
The reality is that in America, the average SNAP benefit is $188 per month. That is 10 times less than what was put forward as proof.Yes and Trump is fighting the courts to keep Americans from eating, unreal.
Translation: Unless you let us rip away your healthcare, we'll starve you.So you think all those women making Tiktok videos complaining about losing their thousands in SNAP benefits are liars?
They could be, but on the internet it is difficult to tell. People do lie, exaggerate, and sometimes even tell the truth.
The average individual SNAP benefit is around $187 to $188 per month, according to recent data from the USDA. That's about $6.25 per day.
SCOTUS hearing arguments over Trump's tariff power right now...
Chief Justice Roberts states as fact that tariffs are a tax on Americans.
He better stay off of boats is all I can say...LOL to those who say he's not an authoritarian...
Trump on President Xi:
"During the meeting, he's here, and he's got about 6 people on each side. And every one of those people were at attention. And I made a comment to one of them and it got no response. And President Xi didn't let him. I said, I want my cabinet to behave like that. I've never seen men so scared in their lives."
It doesn't he already have that though with the fools he's brought in?
https://x.com/atrupar/status/1986068295884152918What does it say about a person's cognitive ability when they continue to defend and support another person who lies at the drop of a hat.
Apparently, Trump just revived this BIG LIE -
"Fact check: Trump revives his false claim that Americans have to show ID to buy groceries"
Isn't that a huge sign of dementia when he can't remember what is a lie and what is not?
https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/05/politics … tificationI'm willing to bet that the man has never stepped foot in a grocery store in his life... But maga somehow believes that Trump can relate to them lol
The AUTHORITARIAN strikes again.
"Shutdown negotiations ongoing as Trump administration threatens to reduce air traffic"
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/ … aa-11-6-25He did it, cutting them back by 40%, I think. Now, we all know he did it force the Democrats to drop their push for health care for Americans, but it might nevertheless be beneficial.
The more stress that builds up on ATC because Republicans don't want some Americans to have health care (harsh, yes, but that is the practical effect of their position) the more dangerous it gets to fly. So, cutting back on flights is a good thing.
This is not a normal statement from the President of the United States. Nothing about Trump or his corrupt administration is normal. He has the mentality of a 12 year old
Trump reacts to Nancy Pelosi retirement:
“The retirement of Nancy Pelosi is a great thing for America. She was evil, corrupt, and only focused on bad things for our country."It's all part of his con to play the victim and to keep The Us and Them game going. A fascist, always has to have an enemy to blame..
That is what is called in psychiatry as "transference" That is when you attempt to transfer your own failings on to others. That tells me Trump sees himself as EVIL, CORRUPT, and only focused on things BAD FOR OUR COUNTRY.
That is what 12-yo do.
Oh my and here we go...
OpenAI wants taxpayers to guarantee its debt. They’re asking the government to guarantee loans (like a co-signer).
Private companies start asking for public funds,???
Tell me about free markets.... Tell me about socialism LOL
Socialize the losses and privatize the gains right???
Socialism for the rich and bootstraps for the rest of us...It is good to see Americans doing the right thing for once.
The shutdown is dragging on. But Americans aren’t tiring of Democrats’ demands.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/06/politics … s-leverageU.S. District Judge John McConnell has just ordered Trump to provide full federal food benefits to states by tomorrow and admonished the government for what he said is its “defiance of an earlier order.”
The judge told DOJ lawyers that it is "simply unacceptable" to wait any longer before providing the full payments through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and instead said the administration should act swiftly...
This is the first time in history that SNAP benefits have been allowed to lapse.
So disappointing for Trump and his cruel bunch that they can't continue to starve people....
My god.... They had to be ordered by a judge to act with decency and humanity.... But please tell me more about your Christian valuesU.S. District Judge John McConnell’s order directing the Trump administration to provide full federal food benefits under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) by Friday raises serious constitutional and legal questions. While the judge accuses the administration of “defiance” of an earlier order, the reality is that the President has no power of the purse — meaning he cannot authorize new federal spending without congressional approval.
Under Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution, “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” This means that only Congress can appropriate funds. The executive branch, including the President and the USDA, may spend only what Congress has already made available by statute or prior appropriation.
The USDA has made clear in court filings and public statements that it cannot legally comply with the judge’s order to pay full benefits unless Congress appropriates the necessary funds. Here’s what the USDA has confirmed:
The agency will use all remaining money in the SNAP Contingency Reserve Fund, roughly $4.65 billion, to provide partial November benefits.
That amount covers only about half of the $8–$9 billion normally required for a full month of SNAP benefits.
The USDA warned that disbursement delays could range from a few weeks to several months as states process reduced payments.
It will not divert money from other child nutrition programs (such as those funded under Section 32 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1935) because that would create “a substantial shortfall” in school meal programs.
The department stated that using other accounts beyond the contingency fund would go “further astray from Congressional intent” and may violate fiscal law.
The controlling statute for SNAP, 7 U.S.C. § 2027, states that the federal government “shall pay to each State agency an amount equal to 100 percent of the benefits issued.” However, this obligation depends on Congress having appropriated the money to fulfill that requirement. Without appropriations, the Antideficiency Act (31 U.S.C. § 1341) prohibits federal agencies from making or authorizing expenditures that exceed available funds.
In other words, while the judge argues that benefits are “owed,” the USDA is legally bound not to spend money that does not exist within an authorized account. Doing so would constitute a violation of federal law.
So the bottom line is this: the court can order the executive branch to use existing funds, but it cannot compel spending that Congress has not approved. The President cannot “create” or “force” money into existence — that authority lies exclusively with Congress. The USDA is already exhausting its contingency funds to prevent a total shutdown of SNAP, but it cannot lawfully fulfill the judge’s order for full benefits without additional congressional appropriations.
In this case, Judge McConnell’s order pushes hard against the constitutional and statutory boundaries that govern how the federal government can spend money. The issue isn’t whether people need food assistance (everyone agrees SNAP is vital); it’s whether a federal judge can compel the executive branch to spend money that Congress hasn’t appropriated — and that’s where the judge appears to be on shaky legal ground.
Here’s why:
The Constitution is clear — Article I, Section 9 gives Congress, and Congress alone, the power of the purse. The President and executive agencies cannot spend a cent without a lawful appropriation.
The Antideficiency Act (31 U.S.C. § 1341) specifically forbids any federal officer from making or authorizing an expenditure or obligation exceeding what Congress has appropriated. Violating this law can even carry criminal penalties.
The USDA has publicly stated that it has already used every legally available source of funding — specifically, the $4.65 billion SNAP contingency reserve fund — and that no additional money exists without congressional action. The department warned that diverting funds from other nutrition programs (like those under Section 32) would directly violate congressional intent and fiscal law.
7 U.S.C. § 2027 makes SNAP a mandatory program in theory, but “mandatory” only means benefits must be paid if funds are available — not that agencies can print money to fulfill the requirement.
In short, the judge seems to be interpreting the law emotionally rather than constitutionally — focusing on the moral urgency rather than the legal framework. Federal courts have traditionally avoided ordering the executive branch to spend money that has not been appropriated because that would amount to judicially overriding Congress’s exclusive power of the purse.
In my view, by morning, this will be appealed by the DOJ., and tossed out in an appeal.I asked AI why the appropriate legislation for funding SNAP was not put in place: Here is the answer.
**Appropriate legislation for SNAP funding stalled due to a combination of partisan gridlock, strategic brinkmanship during a prolonged government shutdown, and legal disputes over executive authority.**
Here’s a breakdown of the key reasons:
1. **Government Shutdown and Partisan Deadlock**
- The federal government has been shut down for over a month, and **Congress failed to pass a comprehensive funding bill** that included SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) support.
- **Democrats pushed for standalone SNAP funding**, calling it a moral and urgent necessity. However, **Republican leaders rejected this**, insisting on an “all-or-nothing” approach to reopening the government.
- Senate Majority Leader John Thune accused Democrats of trying to “pick winners and losers” by isolating SNAP from broader negotiations, while Democrats argued that **food aid should not be held hostage to unrelated policy disputes**.
2. Legal Battles Over Executive Authority**
- The Trump administration **refused to authorize SNAP funding on November 1**, triggering lawsuits from over two dozen states.
- Federal judges ruled that the USDA likely acted illegally in suspending benefits, but the legal wrangling created uncertainty and delays in disbursement.
- This marks the first time in SNAP’s history that **benefits were halted during a shutdown**, despite the USDA having some discretionary authority to continue payments in past crises.
3. **Budgetary and Political Leverage**
- Republicans sought to use the shutdown to extract concessions on **expiring health care subsidies**, while Democrats resisted until food aid and other critical programs were secured.
- The impasse reflects a broader trend of using essential services as **bargaining chips in fiscal showdowns**, which undermines the stability of safety net programs like SNAP.
4. **Impact on Vulnerable Populations**
- Nearly **42 million Americans** rely on SNAP, including children, the elderly, and people with disabilities.
- The lapse in funding has left families scrambling, food banks overwhelmed, and state agencies in limbo about how to administer benefits without federal support.
In short, the failure to pass appropriate SNAP legislation stems from a toxic mix of political brinkmanship, legal uncertainty, and a broader breakdown in the budget negotiation process.** The result is an unprecedented disruption to a critical lifeline for millions of Americans.
So what is better, passing health care benefits so that prices don't rise or starving 42 million people and shutting down 40 major airports?I find nothing in your comment to dispute — everything you said appears factual. My point, however, concerned the judgment issued today by Judge John McConnell. After doing some research, I found that the ruling itself seems questionable. I shared my findings to address the legal aspects surrounding the matter.
I asked AI If Judge McConnell' rulings were legal? Here is the answer I received.
**Yes, Judge John McConnell’s rulings are legal and grounded in established constitutional and administrative law.** His recent decisions have been upheld by legal precedent and have not been overturned on appeal.
Legal Basis of Judge McConnell’s Rulings
Judge John J. McConnell Jr., Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for Rhode Island, has issued multiple rulings recently that have drawn national attention. Here's how they hold up legally:
1. **SNAP Benefits During Government Shutdown**
- McConnell ordered the Trump administration to fully fund the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) for November, despite the ongoing government shutdown.
- He ruled that the administration’s attempt to suspend or partially fund SNAP was *arbitrary and capricious*, violating the **Administrative Procedure Act (APA)**.
- He emphasized that SNAP is a statutory entitlement and that failure to distribute benefits constituted **irreparable harm**, especially to children and vulnerable populations.
2. **Use of Emergency Funds**
- The administration argued it lacked authority to use certain funds, but McConnell ordered it to tap both contingency and child nutrition funds to prevent hunger.
- His ruling relied on the principle that **executive agencies cannot defy statutory mandates** or use procedural ambiguity to delay legally required benefits.
3. **Immigration Enforcement and Transit Funding**
- In a separate case, McConnell struck down the Department of Transportation’s attempt to condition federal transit funds on state cooperation with ICE.
- He ruled this violated the **Spending Clause of the Constitution** and exceeded the agency’s statutory authority.
- The decision permanently enjoined the federal government from enforcing such conditions, reinforcing the limits of executive power over appropriated funds.
Legal Standing and Precedent
- McConnell’s rulings are consistent with prior federal decisions that restrict executive overreach and protect statutory entitlements.
- His decisions have not been overturned and are being followed by other courts weighing similar cases.
- The government has filed appeals, but no higher court has yet invalidated his orders.
Summary
Judge McConnell’s rulings are legally sound, based on constitutional principles, statutory interpretation, and administrative law. They reflect judicial checks on executive action and uphold the rights of individuals to receive benefits guaranteed by law.My information also came from AI. I didn’t ask whether the judge’s ruling was legally sound, I asked whether it could be questioned, and I highlighted issues tied to laws the USDA is required to follow. The findings suggested that the USDA may be at fault in how it’s handling the matter. I specifically requested factual information and identification of the relevant laws. Based on that, I formed the opinion that the ruling will likely be appealed and overturned quickly.
U.S. District Judge John McConnell’s order directing the Trump administration to provide full federal food benefits under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) by Friday raises serious constitutional and legal questions. While the judge accuses the administration of “defiance” of an earlier order, the reality is that the President has no power of the purse — meaning he cannot authorize new federal spending without congressional approval.
Under Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution, “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” This means that only Congress can appropriate funds. The executive branch, including the President and the USDA, may spend only what Congress has already made available by statute or prior appropriation.
The USDA has made clear in court filings and public statements that it cannot legally comply with the judge’s order to pay full benefits unless Congress appropriates the necessary funds. Here’s what the USDA has confirmed:
The agency will use all remaining money in the SNAP Contingency Reserve Fund, roughly $4.65 billion, to provide partial November benefits.
That amount covers only about half of the $8–$9 billion normally required for a full month of SNAP benefits.
The USDA warned that disbursement delays could range from a few weeks to several months as states process reduced payments.
It will not divert money from other child nutrition programs (such as those funded under Section 32 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1935) because that would create “a substantial shortfall” in school meal programs.
The department stated that using other accounts beyond the contingency fund would go “further astray from Congressional intent” and may violate fiscal law.
The controlling statute for SNAP, 7 U.S.C. § 2027, states that the federal government “shall pay to each State agency an amount equal to 100 percent of the benefits issued.” However, this obligation depends on Congress having appropriated the money to fulfill that requirement. Without appropriations, the Antideficiency Act (31 U.S.C. § 1341) prohibits federal agencies from making or authorizing expenditures that exceed available funds.
In other words, while the judge argues that benefits are “owed,” the USDA is legally bound not to spend money that does not exist within an authorized account. Doing so would constitute a violation of federal law.
So the bottom line is this: the court can order the executive branch to use existing funds, but it cannot compel spending that Congress has not approved. The President cannot “create” or “force” money into existence — that authority lies exclusively with Congress. The USDA is already exhausting its contingency funds to prevent a total shutdown of SNAP, but it cannot lawfully fulfill the judge’s order for full benefits without additional congressional appropriations.
In this case, Judge McConnell’s order pushes hard against the constitutional and statutory boundaries that govern how the federal government can spend money. The issue isn’t whether people need food assistance (everyone agrees SNAP is vital); it’s whether a federal judge can compel the executive branch to spend money that Congress hasn’t appropriated — and that’s where the judge appears to be on shaky legal ground.
Here’s why:
The Constitution is clear — Article I, Section 9 gives Congress, and Congress alone, the power of the purse. The President and executive agencies cannot spend a cent without a lawful appropriation.
The Antideficiency Act (31 U.S.C. § 1341) specifically forbids any federal officer from making or authorizing an expenditure or obligation exceeding what Congress has appropriated. Violating this law can even carry criminal penalties.
The USDA has publicly stated that it has already used every legally available source of funding — specifically, the $4.65 billion SNAP contingency reserve fund — and that no additional money exists without congressional action. The department warned that diverting funds from other nutrition programs (like those under Section 32) would directly violate congressional intent and fiscal law.
7 U.S.C. § 2027 makes SNAP a mandatory program in theory, but “mandatory” only means benefits must be paid if funds are available — not that agencies can print money to fulfill the requirement.
In short, the judge seems to be interpreting the law emotionally rather than constitutionally — focusing on the moral urgency rather than the legal framework. Federal courts have traditionally avoided ordering the executive branch to spend money that has not been appropriated because that would amount to judicially overriding Congress’s exclusive power of the purse.
In my view, by morning, this will be appealed by the DOJ., and tossed out in an appeal.This is what Trump wrote on Untruth Social“
SNAP BENEFITS … will be given only when the Radical Left Democrats open up government, … and not before!”
That sounds like "defying" to me. The judge wasn't wrong. (Also, two federal judges gave basically the same order.)It sounds to me like he believes Congress needs to hold its ground, and he was simply sharing his opinion. I’m as frustrated as anyone about the benefits being delayed, but it appears the USDA is operating within the limits of the laws it must follow. Ultimately, it’s up to Congress to decide how to move forward. I doubt an appeals court will overturn the ruling, but hopefully the USDA can still find a way to allocate some funds to SNAP within legal boundaries; something is better than nothing.
Congress controls federal spending
Under the U.S. Constitution, Congress has the “power of the purse” (Article I, Section 9).
Federal agencies can only spend money that Congress has appropriated for a specific purpose.
2. Limits on presidential authority
The President cannot unilaterally redirect funds from one program to another without Congressional authorization.
There are a few limited exceptions, such as:
Emergency powers (like the National Emergencies Act), which still often require reporting to Congress.
Reprogramming authority within agencies, which is typically limited to minor adjustments and must comply with laws and reporting requirements.
3. Practical example
If Trump (or any president) tried to move money appropriated for SNAP or Medicaid to another program without Congress approving a supplemental appropriation or statutory authority, that would likely be illegal and could be challenged in court.
Courts have historically struck down attempts to redirect funds that bypass Congressional approval (e.g., cases involving border wall funding in 2019–2020).Oh yes, congress should hold its ground.. let us take away your health care or we will starve you. Great message from a bunch of sickos.
Trump's biggest accomplishment thus far? Bringing back the pandemic economy without the pandemic!The American people want the Democrats to hold their ground to protect health care.
If Trump (or any president) tried to move money appropriated for SNAP or Medicaid to another program without Congress approving a supplemental appropriation or statutory authority, that would likely be illegal and could be challenged in court.
Courts have historically struck down attempts to redirect funds that bypass Congressional approval (e.g., cases involving border wall funding in 2019–2020).Like I said, the man has absolutely no problem with enacting whatever pops into his brain with one slurred sentence, whether it holds up in court or not... He is ruling this country as a dictator. Congress has been shuttered. He has stated that he is both POTUS and speaker of the House.... Truth be told, he doesn't give a shit about snap recipients or those who have lost their insurance due to the loss of tax credits... He clearly stated that he is funding what he wants to fund.
"Like I said, the man has absolutely no problem with enacting whatever pops into his brain with one slurred sentence, whether it holds up in court or not... He is ruling this country as a dictator. Congress has been shuttered. He has stated that he is both POTUS and speaker of the House.... Truth be told, he doesn't give a shit about snap recipients or those who have lost their insurance due to the loss of tax credits... He clearly stated that he is funding what he wants to fund." Willow
This would all be your opinion. My view was formed by what I have researched on the laws that stand in the way of Trump's ability to allocate money. In Short, there’s no clean, broad legal move the President can take to simply “overstep” Congress and fully fund monthly SNAP benefits nationwide. There are a few narrow legal tools the executive can try, and some of them can help pay part of the bill, but each is limited by statute, OMB/GAO apportionment rules, or by how the law defines the purpose of the money.
The Congress can allocate funds from many other federal funds. To repeat ---
A bill was introduced by Josh Hawley (R‑MO) in the U.S. Senate titled the Keep SNAP Funded Act of 2025 (S. 3024. It was a simple standalone, and stands as introduced, and not addressed.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-con … hatgpt.com
Here’s a simple explanation of the Keep SNAP Funded Act of 2025:
The bill is designed to make sure people on SNAP keep getting their benefits even if Congress hasn’t passed the normal funding for USDA for fiscal year 2026. It does two main things:
Keeps SNAP benefits going without interruption during any gap in funding.
Pays retroactively anyone who missed SNAP benefits starting September 30, 2025, until the bill is passed.
Basically, it temporarily funds SNAP so people don’t lose benefits while waiting for Congress to approve the full USDA budget. The money from this bill is available only until the full FY2026 USDA funding is passed.Oh got it, he must adhere to the very letter of the law when it comes to poor folks eating but the regime spent research and development money to pay the troops, violating appropriations law and a slew of other statutes....
How Trump Violated the Law to Pay the Military | Lawfare https://share.google/YrO7iIuE2P9DtL65l
Unless those funds are in SNAP related appropriations like the:
* “SNAP contingency fund/reserve”
* Section 32 which is routinely used to transfer money from by USDA, say to prop up WIC.
* Multi-year “contingency” appropriations for SNAP
What you say is true for many appropriations but critically not those I just listed
(Also, there is this little thing of you not saying the same thing when Trump ILLEGALLY transferred money to pay the troops. Why were you silent on that?SNAFU = Situation Normal all Effed up, Thanks to Trump.
The USDA has sent states a vague statement that it is “working towards implementing” the court’s order while the administration filed an emergency appeal with the court of appeals. The department did not, however, explicitly rescind its previous guidance telling states to recalculate and cut households’ benefits.
Some states have read the memo as authorizing them to issue full benefits, but other states are seeking further clarification, further extending the waits of their low-income families. SNAP may be entering a period of chaos, with a supposedly “uniform national” program staying open or shutting down based on the empathy and risk tolerance of individual state governors.
And despite the USDA’s statement, the administration has not withdrawn its appeal. It claims that it is refusing to transfer the needed funds to SNAP out of concern that Congress might, for the first time in almost 80 years, decide to defund the child nutrition programs — something nobody in either party is proposing to do. Instead, it asked both the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court to delay Judge McConnell’s order.Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson postponed that order’s effective date long enough for the Court of Appeals to evaluate the Government’s appeal.
One can only conclude from all this foot-dragging without any legal justification that the Trump administration is seeking to maximize the suffering of low-income Americans to gain political leverage on Democratic lawmakers. The USDA’s warning last week that stores cannot offer discounts to households that have lost their SNAP benefits seems to support that conclusion.
Last weekend, President Donald Trump posted on Truth Social that it would be his “honor” to provide SNAP benefits if a court told the administration where to find the money. Judge McConnell has done just that. This shameful episode must end.Does he really think those he is hurting are going to turn on the Democrats?
"Last weekend, President Donald Trump posted on Truth Social that it would be his “honor” to provide SNAP benefits if a court told the administration where to find the money. Judge McConnell has done just that. This shameful episode must end." PP
One question, I don't want to misspeak. Where did Judge McConnell feel the money could come from?
Here is what I have come to understand regarding the legality of the judge's ruling, and why it now sits in the Supreme Court's hands. It appears the USFDA is between a rock and a hard place.
The core of the Trump administration’s legal argument, and it’s why this is such a contentious issue. Here’s the breakdown:
1. SNAP funds vs. other USDA programs
Congress appropriates funds for a variety of food-related programs under the USDA, such as:
1.SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program)
2.School lunch programs / National School Lunch Program (NSLP)
3.WIC (Women, Infants, and Children)
Agricultural support programs funded by Section 32
EACH of these programs has funds earmarked specifically for its intended purpose. Congress SETS those allocations in LAW , often with strict conditions on how the money can be spent.
2. Can the USDA move money between programs without Congressional approval?
Generally, no. The Antideficiency Act and the Appropriations Clause prohibit spending money outside the purpose Congress specified. If the USDA took funds from, say, the school lunch program or Section 32 funds to cover SNAP benefits, it could be legally challenged as misappropriation of funds. The USDA could be charged with misappropriation of funds.
Exceptions exist only if:
If Congress has explicitly granted flexibility in the statute, or
The money is part of a contingency reserve that Congress designed for multiple programs. This is not the case here...
Updated on Nov. 10 at 9:15 a.m.
On Monday morning, the Supreme Court instructed the Trump administration to inform it by 11 a.m. whether it intends to continue to seek a stay to a district court order requiring the government to pay $4 billion to fully fund the federal food-stamp program for November.
The Trump administration on Friday night had asked the Supreme Court to pause the ruling by a federal judge in Rhode Island. The “unprecedented” order by U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. “makes a mockery of the separation of powers,” U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote. Sauer acknowledged that the “funding lapse” due to the 38-day government shutdown “is a crisis,” but he called it “a crisis occasioned by congressional failure and one that can only be solved through congressional action.”
Congress funds the program, known as the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program, during its annual appropriations process. The program was fully funded through Sept. 30, 2025, the end of the 2025 fiscal year, but there has been no appropriation for the 2026 fiscal year.
On Oct. 24, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which administers the program, announced that it had suspended benefits for November because of the government shutdown. That prompted a group of nonprofits and cities to go to federal court in Rhode Island, where they argued that the suspension of benefits violated the federal laws governing administrative agencies. They asked McConnell to require the agency to use emergency funds to pay for the November benefits.
McConnell initially offered the Trump administration a choice between quickly making partial payments from the emergency funds or fully funding the November benefits using funds from other sources. The Trump administration chose the former option, but on Thursday, McConnell ordered the Trump administration to go with the latter option and pay the November benefits in full by Friday.
The Trump administration appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit. When it filed its application, the court of appeals had not acted on the government’s request. In a letter distributed to reporters shortly after the Trump administration’s application was filed, Sauer told the justices that the 1st Circuit had denied the government’s request for an immediate administrative stay but indicated that it would act “as quickly as possible” on the request for a stay pending appeal.
Urging the justices to block McConnell’s ruling, Sauer argued that “the SNAP statute is explicit that SNAP benefits are subject to available appropriations, and it states plainly that SNAP payments shall not exceed the funds appropriated for the program.” If there is not enough funding, he wrote, “USDA will direct States to reduce their benefits—which is exactly what USDA did this week.”
Moreover, Sauer warned, if McConnell’s ruling is “allowed to stand,” it will “metastasize and sow further shutdown chaos. Every beneficiary of a federal program could run into court, point to an agency’s general discretion to prioritize funding, and claim that failing to prioritize their chosen program” violated the federal law governing administrative agencies.
Finally, Sauer continued, once the funds have been paid out, “there is no ready mechanism for the government to recover” them.
In an order released to reporters at 9:17 p.m. EST on Friday night, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issued the administrative stay that the government had requested, giving the court of appeals time to weigh in on the Trump administration’s motion for a stay pending appeal. The order states that “[t]his administrative stay will terminate forty-eight hours after the First Circuit’s resolution of the pending motion, which the First Circuit is expected to issue with dispatch.”
On Sunday night, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit turned down the Trump administration’s request to pause the district court’s ruling while the government appeals, starting the 48-hour clock in the administrative stay that Jackson issued on Friday night.
Jackson then issued a new order shortly after 8 a.m. on Monday, instructing the Trump administration to tell the court by 11 a.m. on Monday whether it intends to rely on Friday’s application to continue to seek a stay. If it does intend to do so, Jackson said, the government should file any supplemental brief by 4 p.m. on Monday, with any responses from the challengers to follow by 8 a.m. on Tuesday.
I would think Congress could simply vote on reallocating the USDA funds to release funds from the other two food aid programs. Odd that they have not, due to the urgency. However, if the other funds were used, it would then put the other two programs at risk. I would hope that in this new bill they are working on, it will just add a new amount of funds into SNAP to alleviate taking funds from the other two programs --- robbing Peter to pay Paul.Or maybe this bunch just couldn't care less...trump already stated that they paid and funded those who they wanted to...he literally has so much disdain for his followers
The thing is, Congress doesn't need to vote. The money is already there.
U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell Jr. (Rhode Island) explicitly said USDA could use “available Section 32 funds” and the agency’s
contingency/reserve funds to pay November SNAP during the shutdown.
A First Circuit filing summarizing his Temporary Restraining Order states USDA was required to make full payments “by utilizing available Section 32 funds in combination with the contingency funds.”
ca1.uscourts.gov
+1
Reporting on his ruling likewise notes McConnell rejected USDA’s (and your) objection to tapping Section 32 (traditionally used for agriculture/food-purchase programs), saying there would still be enough left for child-nutrition programs even if billions were diverted to SNAP for November.
Rhode Island Current
I think I said as much five time before.
He is the President, in case you forgot. That was no opinion, it was clearly a statement of intent to starve SNAP recipients.
Why didn't you yell at Trump when he ILLEGALLY paid the troops by ILLEGALLY moving money from R&D accounts into O&M accounts. Where is your consistency.
And, in any case, as the judge pointed out (and everyone else knows), USDA has the appropriated money to do what he orders without bumping up against the anti-deficiency act.
Also, when did Donald 'the felon" Trump EVER worry about what is legal or not?
Interesting thought, but here is where it fails. (I already knew the answer but ChatGPT says it so much better.
SNAP is a mandatory (entitlement) program, not a discretionary one.
Congress has already permanently appropriated funds for SNAP benefits in the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (as amended, 7 U.S.C. § 2011 et seq.).
Each year’s appropriation bill adds administrative funds, but the core benefit money is standing authority — meaning USDA can legally issue payments as long as recipients are eligible.
So, when the judge orders the executive to keep paying SNAP, she’s not forcing spending without an appropriation; she’s compelling the government to carry out an existing statutory mandate that Congress already funded.
The annual SNAP appropriation and the emergency fund aren't the only appropriated money USDA has.
What I didn't realize is that Congress REQUIRES the president to pay SNAP benefits so long as there is money available to do it with.
Trump to the Novo Nordisk CEO: "Maybe you should give us a piece of the company like I've been asking for."
Tell me more about socialism LOL
Is there any company that he doesn't try to shake down?
I feel like I am watching a mob movie and he is demanding protection money.
Nice company you have there, would be terrible if something bad happened..
https://x.com/atrupar/status/1986509425356492880From the USDA website.... This is from the actual freaking government... Enough already.
SNAP Eligibility | Food and Nutrition Service https://share.google/lr0Pyij9oYggmouRXIt's the first Friday of the month, which means we've gone 2 months now without a jobs report. For Trump, this is a feature of the shutdown, not a bug, since private surveys show the job market slowing dramatically. But without official data he's able to keep lying about it....
Trump...."I don't want to hear about affordability."
Yes, Don, we understand why you say that.
I asked AI if the GOP has a replacement plan for ACA? Here is the answer.
**No, the GOP does not currently have a unified or detailed replacement plan for the Affordable Care Act (ACA). While some Republicans claim to be working on alternatives, there is no consensus or publicly available blueprint.**
Here’s a breakdown of the current situation:
Fragmented GOP Position on ACA Replacement
- **No comprehensive plan has been released** by the GOP despite repeated promises over the past decade. Even during Trump’s first term, when Republicans controlled the presidency and both chambers of Congress, they failed to pass a replacement after multiple repeal attempts.
- **Senator Bernie Moreno (R-OH)** recently admitted that it would take “three or four months” to build consensus on a plan, but offered no specifics when pressed.
- **Speaker Mike Johnson** acknowledged the difficulty of full repeal, citing “PTSD” from the failed 2017 effort and the deep entrenchment of ACA provisions.
Proposed Ideas and Alternatives
Some Republicans have floated partial reforms or alternative models:
- **Rand Paul’s “Health Marketplace for All Act”** proposes allowing groups like Costco or Amazon to offer collective insurance plans, aiming to reduce premiums through bargaining power.
- **Project 2025**, a broader conservative policy blueprint, suggests rolling back ACA mandates, including protections for pre-existing conditions and essential health benefits.
- **GOP negotiators have discussed** imposing minimum out-of-pocket premiums and restoring income caps on subsidies, but these are still informal and lack Trump’s endorsement.
Consequences of Inaction
- The GOP’s refusal to extend ACA’s enhanced subsidies is contributing to a government shutdown and could lead to **premium hikes of 80–100% for millions** if no action is taken.
- **Nearly 4 million Americans could lose coverage** if the subsidies expire, disproportionately affecting Republican-led districts.
Bottom Line
Despite years of opposition to the ACA, the GOP has yet to produce a viable, detailed replacement plan. The current strategy appears focused on criticizing the ACA and resisting subsidy extensions, rather than offering a clear alternative.
What the hell is going on here?ACA was doomed to fail from the start, in my view, and it has failed. I think a lot of people overlook this: before the ACA, if you bought insurance on your own, you paid the premiums yourself, full stop. Now, with ACA subsidies, the federal government is covering a large portion of what used to be the individual’s responsibility. The problem is, premiums have risen so much that the government is often paying roughly what a person would have paid on their own, sometimes even more. The ACA helped more people get coverage, but it didn’t fix the underlying costs, and now taxpayers are picking up a much bigger bill.
I completely agree that we now need some form of reform — a new healthcare system to help those who cannot afford all of their medical care.The way I see it, there is no consensus on a plan to fix it. In the mean time, Trump is holding us hostage with 40 major airport shut downs and 42 million people without SNAP..
It’s true that there isn’t a national consensus on how to fix healthcare, but that’s not unique to Trump’s administration. For decades, Democrats and Republicans have disagreed on how much government involvement there should be in healthcare. Democrats tend to push for expanded federal control, like the Affordable Care Act or even universal healthcare, while Republicans argue for market-based reforms that preserve choice and competition. So the absence of a “consensus plan” is really a reflection of deep ideological differences across the country, not the failure of one person or one administration.
As for saying Trump is “holding us hostage,” that still feels like an exaggeration. The government shutdown and healthcare policy are two different issues. The shutdown reflects a funding dispute, often involving border security or spending priorities, while healthcare reform is a long-term policy challenge. It’s not accurate to conflate the two or suggest that Trump is intentionally punishing citizens.
In short, there’s no national agreement on healthcare because the nation itself is divided on what “fixing it” even means, whether that’s government-run coverage, private insurance reform, or something in between. The shutdown adds stress to the situation, but blaming Trump alone for both problems simplifies what’s really a complex and shared failure of leadership on both sides.
I see things differently when it comes to how the Democrats have handled this. In my view, forcing a massive social program into a budget negotiation feels, for lack of a better word, like blackmail. To me, it’s another example of an unscrupulous political tactic, one that’s disrupting our aviation system and, worse yet, causing people to suffer from food shortages because of this power play.What I look at are the people that will die from lack of health insurance due to Republican recalcitrance.
* The CBO estimates 11 to 17 million insured who legally qualify for Medicaid will lose it because of the One Big Ugly Bill.
* Because the Republicans won't negotiate with the Democrats, another 2 to 4 million people will lose their ACA.
Studies (which I can produce) show that based on those numbers, thousands of people would die PER YEAR that wouldn't have otherwise.
IT IS THAT which the Democrats are fighting for.
And, as it turns out, the polls clearly show Americans understand and buy that Democratic position; they would rather keep their insurance than have the gov't open.
Washington Post poll (Oct 1, 2025): More Americans blamed Trump and congressional Republicans than Democrats for the shutdown; 71% supported extending ACA subsidies—the core Democratic ask.
AP-NORC (mid-Oct 2025): Majorities said Trump and congressional Republicans bear high responsibility, and Democrats hold an edge on health care—the issue driving the standoff.
KFF Health Tracking Poll (early Nov 2025): Among people who buy their own insurance, 55% said Democrats should refuse to pass a budget without an ACA-subsidy extension (45% said pass it without the extension).
Data for Progress (Nov 6, 2025): On SNAP during the shutdown, voters trust Democrats more to handle the program (51%–43%) and broadly want benefits to continue—aligning with Democrats’ stance.
And ask you why Democrats need the leverage. Because without it, the Republicans WILLNOT do the right thing! They have already proven that with slashing millions of people off of Medicaid. They are proving it again by not extending the ACA subsidies. It almost looks like they want people to die.
How blind can a person be to say ACA, which is a booming success, has failed. All that shows me is those that really believe that are living in the mythical world of Trump.
CAN YOU BELIEVE THAT ASSHOLE - Trump goes to the Supreme Court asking them to allow him to starve Americans!!!!
https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/07/politics … p-benefits"For Donald there is no value in empathy, no tangible upside to caring for other people."
-Mary Trump
We've come a long way since Carter gave up his peanut farm....
Trump is now selling his Trump Wine on military bases.
Corruption is the rule not the exception LOL...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/zacheverso … overnment/Just curious, but did his SS crew follow him into the bases and help him out as he made his sales pitch for the wine?
From your link: "Coast Guard Exchanges at its headquarters in Washington, D.C., and in Centreville, Virginia, recently stocked Trump-branded wine and cider, according to a photo posted on Instagram and confirmed by Forbes from calls to the stores."
You do understand that there is a wide, wide world of difference between a purchasing agent somewhere making a choice of wines from a long list and Trump pitching his product on site?
The exaggeration side of the TDS affect is strong here.Ahhh, that mythical TDS thing. Sure evidence of a lack of evidence-based rebuttal.
You must have forgotten, it is unethical and unseemly for sitting Presidents to make money from hawking their goods to those under their control. That may also be illegal, not that Trump cares.I asked AI what would Trump have to do to fund SNAP. Here is the reply.
**To fund SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), Trump would need to either approve emergency use of contingency funds or pass a continuing resolution or budget bill that includes full SNAP appropriations. As of now, his administration has refused to tap available reserves, triggering benefit cuts amid the government shutdown.**
Here’s a detailed breakdown of what’s required:
Legislative and Executive Actions Needed
- **Pass a budget or continuing resolution**: Congress must approve a funding bill that includes SNAP allocations. Trump would need to sign it into law. The 2025 shutdown stems from stalled negotiations over ACA subsidies, which are entangled with SNAP funding.
- **Authorize use of contingency reserves**: The USDA has about **$5–6 billion in contingency funds**, but Trump’s administration claims these are legally restricted to disaster relief, not regular benefits. A judge in Rhode Island ordered the administration to release these funds, but the White House has not confirmed compliance.
- **Reverse policy changes in the “One Big Beautiful Bill”**: This 2025 law signed by Trump includes **stricter work requirements** and **limits on SNAP eligibility**, which reduce the number of beneficiaries and lower benefit levels.
Current Impact of Inaction
- **No federal SNAP benefits were issued on November 1**, marking a major disruption for over 40 million Americans who rely on the program.
- **States cannot legally be reimbursed** if they cover SNAP costs themselves, and some are advising residents to seek food pantries.
- **School meal programs are also affected**, as SNAP eligibility determines automatic enrollment for free meals. Tens of thousands of children may lose access unless families reapply manually.
What Trump Could Do Immediately
- **Issue an executive directive to release contingency funds**, overriding USDA’s narrow interpretation.
- **Negotiate with Senate Democrats** to pass a funding bill that includes ACA subsidies and SNAP appropriations.
- **Suspend or delay new eligibility restrictions** from the 2025 law to prevent mass disenrollment.
Bottom Line
Trump has the authority to restore SNAP funding through executive action or legislative negotiation, but his current stance—refusing to release contingency funds and demanding ACA concessions—has led to widespread benefit disruptions.
The Trump regime has the money to keep SNAP running... they’re just refusing to use it. There is a contingency fund. Trump lackeys literally deleted it off the USDA site...
There’s no excuse for playing politics with people’s ability to eat.To be precise for the benefit of some here who don't understand the budget process - "The Trump regime has the Authorized and Appropriated money to keep SNAP running".
There are some here that are so befuddled by Trump's rhetoric, they refuse to see what is right in front of them and attempt to justify his cruelty anyway.I think one should note that the USDA is doing what it can with the funds it has, and that emotions do not play a part in all of this, facts do. The contingency funds that are available were offered days ago, but they fall short of fully funding SNAP benefits for November. The agency has stated it will not use funds allocated for school lunch or child nutrition programs, which are legally separate from SNAP. At this point, it would be up to Congress to reallocate funds from elsewhere to cover what the USDA cannot. If anyone is to blame, it would be Congress, they have the authority to “rob Peter to pay Paul” by moving money where it is needed. Courts have already weighed in on this, requiring the USDA to use available reserves to ensure benefits are provided, highlighting the legal and operational limits the agency faces under current law.
If Congress wants to ensure SNAP benefits are fully funded, there are several areas where they could legally reallocate money. They could shift funds from other USDA programs, like child nutrition or school lunch programs, or even from agricultural subsidies and specialty crop programs, though these require congressional approval. Discretionary spending accounts across federal agencies, including HHS or other non-emergency programs, could also be reprioritized. In addition, disaster relief or emergency funds could be tapped temporarily, and Congress has the power to rescind unspent funds from prior fiscal years or include adjustments in a continuing resolution. The key point is that the USDA cannot move these funds on its own, only Congress has the authority to redirect money to cover SNAP shortfalls.
there has been legislation introduced as a standalone effort to fund Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) during the shutdown. For example, the Keep SNAP Funded Act of 2025 (S. 3024) was introduced by Josh Hawley on October 21, 2025.
Congress.gov
Josh Hawley
https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-con … hatgpt.com
However, while the bill is introduced and cosponsored by many members of Congress, it has not been brought to a full vote yet — leadership has not scheduled a floor vote, and Senate leadership has resisted using unanimous consent or other procedures to advance it.
Congress is at fault here... They could pass a standalone to relocate cash to pay for SNAP.No, there's no shifting the blame away from trump. He dictates literally anything and everything from a single slurred sentence...
I shared facts --- Nothing more needs to be said, in my view.
LOL there is essentially no congress. Trump has taken away their power. He rules by executive order.. that's it. He could do the same with SNAP but he chooses not to because he doesn't give a shit because there's not one ounce of empathy in the sociopath's body.
"I’m the speaker and the president,” Trump October 25You shared an opinion.
I share FACTS here, and above.
FACT, not opinion - A month of SNAP costs USDA about $8.3 B, which they are required by law to pay that SNAP.. There was $5.5 B in the “SNAP contingency fund/reserve” fund they could have tapped if they wanted to, but Trump told them no.
FACT, not opinion - There is another $32 B in the Section 32 which is routinely used to transfer money from by USDA, say to prop up WIC.
FACT, not opinion - Finally, there is about $6 B in Multi-year “contingency” appropriations for SNAP they could have tapped.
So, yes, there is definitely more that needs to be said about it.
You said "I think one should note that the USDA is doing what it can with the funds it has".
A month of SNAP costs USDA about $8.3 B, which they are required by law to pay that SNAP.. There was $5.5 B in the “SNAP contingency fund/reserve” fund they could have tapped if they wanted to, but Trump told them no.
There is another $32 B in the Section 32 which is routinely used to transfer money from by USDA, say to prop up WIC.
Finally, there is about $6 B in Multi-year “contingency” appropriations for SNAP they could have tapped.
So, those are the FACTS and it should now be clear USDA was not doing everything they could to feed hungry Americans. They and their defenders should be ashamed.
Oh my.. the golden age is upon us
Massive breadline in Ohio...
Ingenious isn't it? Trump brought back the pandemic economy without the pandemic!
https://x.com/SpencerHakimian/status/19 … 38279?s=20And more of the golden age...
The FAA issues a ground stop at New York’s JFK airport and Chicago’s O’Hare airport because Trump wants to increase health insurance premiums by 200%.The root cause of many of Trump's and our problems stem from these unqualified people he has as cabinet members.
**Many of Trump’s 2025 cabinet picks have drawn criticism for lacking conventional qualifications, relevant experience, or for promoting controversial views. While all were confirmed by the Senate, several appointments appear driven more by loyalty, ideology, or media presence than by expertise.**
Here’s a breakdown of key figures and the concerns surrounding their qualifications:
Notable Cabinet Members and Criticisms
| **Position** | **Appointee** | **Criticism** |
|--------------|----------------|----------------|
| **Surgeon General** | *Casey Means* | Physician-turned-influencer with no completed residency or active medical license; promotes wellness via Instagram |
| **Secretary of Health and Human Services** | *Robert F. Kennedy Jr.* | Known for anti-vaccine activism and conspiracy theories; lacks public health leadership experience |
| **Secretary of Defense** | *Pete Hegseth* | Fox News commentator and Army veteran; criticized for politicizing military issues and lacking strategic command experience |
| **Attorney General** | *Pam Bondi* | Former Florida AG; criticized for partisan loyalty and lack of federal prosecutorial background |
| **Secretary of Education** | *Linda McMahon* | Former WWE executive; lacks experience in public education policy |
| **Secretary of Energy** | *Chris Wright* | Oil executive; criticized for climate skepticism and lack of experience with national energy infrastructure |
| **Secretary of State** | *Marco Rubio* | Former senator; criticized for limited diplomatic experience and partisan approach |
| **Secretary of Homeland Security** | *Kristi Noem* | South Dakota governor; faced scrutiny over ethics and lack of national security credentials |
| **Director of National Intelligence** | *Tulsi Gabbard* | Former congresswoman; criticized for foreign policy stances and ties to authoritarian regimes |
Patterns Behind the Picks
- **Media and loyalty over merit**: Many appointees are media personalities, influencers, or loyal Trump allies with limited technical expertise.
- **Ideological alignment**: Several picks reflect Trump’s populist and anti-establishment agenda, especially in health, education, and energy.
- **Senate confirmation despite concerns**: All 22 cabinet-level positions were confirmed by the Senate, though many faced narrow votes and intense scrutiny.
Bottom Line
Trump’s second-term cabinet reflects a shift from technocratic governance toward ideological and media-driven appointments. Critics argue this undermines institutional competence, while supporters claim it disrupts entrenched bureaucracies.
My God...
50 year mortgage is a joke.
Going to cost more for the loan (duration risk) and then you’re going to pay double in interest costs alone
Basically 10% reduction in monthly payment but goes on for 20 extra years
Brutal...They're trading decades of extra debt for relatively small % monthly relief.
Incredibly stupid but what else would one expect from this bunch... Looks like Trump's buddy Pulte is behind it. Of course LOLCONGRESS COULD FIX THIS PROBLEM --- with a simple standalone bill.
I believe the USDA is offering what is currently available in its contingency funds, but that amount simply isn’t enough to meet what the court has ordered them to pay. Based on official government filings and USDA documents, it appears the department is trying to release whatever funds are legally accessible, yet the balance falls far short of the total needed to fully fund the program.
The USDA’s own budget notes confirm that SNAP contingency and multi-year funds are limited and designed only for short-term emergencies, not to cover a full month of benefits. Since SNAP costs about $8–9 billion per month, the available balances of a few billion dollars can’t meet the total obligation. The Antideficiency Act (31 U.S.C. § 1341) also prevents USDA from paying more than Congress has authorized, even under a court order. DOJ filings indicate USDA has already disbursed what’s available or reserved it for partial payments but cannot lawfully pay the rest without new appropriations. Section 32 funds (7 U.S.C. § 612c) can’t fill the gap either, as they’re restricted to commodity purchases and nutrition-support activities.
In short, the USDA isn’t refusing to comply — it’s legally constrained. They’re paying what they can from limited reserves, but without congressional action to approve new spending, federal law bars them from covering the remaining benefits.
Short answer up front: the USDA’s stated legal barriers to paying 100% of court-ordered SNAP benefits during a lapse in appropriations rest on (1) the Antideficiency Act’s prohibition on incurring obligations or making payments without a lawful appropriation, (2) statutory limits on other potential funding sources (Section 32 and contingency/multi-year balances) that restrict how those funds may be used, and (3) the practical fact that available contingency or carryover balances are limited and/or legally earmarked. Below I lay out the reasons in detail and cite only official government sources.
1) The Antideficiency Act — basic legal constraint
Federal agencies may not obligate or expend money except as Congress has lawfully appropriated. The Antideficiency Act (31 U.S.C. §1341 and related provisions) bars agencies from creating new obligations or making payments when the relevant appropriation has lapsed, unless a statutory exception applies (e.g., an express statutory authority to obligate in advance, an emergency involving the safety of human life or protection of property, or other very narrow exceptions). That law is the primary reason agencies must be cautious about making benefit payments during a funding lapse: if USDA pays benefits without a legal appropriation it risks violating the Antideficiency Act (with administrative and criminal penalties for willful violation). See the statute and GAO discussion of lapse rules.
U.S. Code
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edi … hatgpt.com
2) “Mandatory” program status does not automatically mean USDA can spend during a lapse
SNAP is an entitlement program — but being an entitlement (i.e., authorized by law to provide benefits when eligible people apply) does not itself create indefinite cash on hand when annual appropriations or continuing resolutions lapse. In practice, whether USDA can continue making benefit payments during a lapse depends on whether there is available budget authority (carryover, multi-year appropriations, or other statutory permanent authorities) that Congress has already made available for obligation. GAO and OMB guidance make clear that program continuity during a lapse depends on the specific availability and permissibility of underlying budget authority.
Government Accountability Office https://www.gao.gov/legal/appropriation … hatgpt.com
3) Section 32 (“permanent appropriation”) exists but is statutorily limited
Section 32 of the Act of August 24, 1935 (7 U.S.C. §612c) is a permanent appropriation that provides funds drawn from customs receipts for certain agricultural commodity and child nutrition support activities. That permanent authority does not give the Secretary unlimited discretion to use Section 32 receipts for routine SNAP benefit payments. The statute and USDA program guidance show Section 32 has specified permitted uses (commodity purchase and certain program support activities), and the funds have historically been applied according to those statutory restrictions — not as a general backstop to pay routine SNAP benefits during an annual-appropriations lapse. See the Section 32 statute/USDA materials describing the program and permitted uses.
Farm Service Agency
https://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_F … hatgpt.com
4) SNAP contingency reserves / multi-year balances exist, but are limited and often earmarked
USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) maintains contingency/carryover balances and some multi-year appropriations for SNAP and related programs. Those balances can be used in some circumstances (for example, to smooth temporary spikes in participation or costs), but they are finite and are often budgeted for specific uses (certification systems, administrative needs, emergency allotments, or limited contingency authorities spelled out in appropriation language). USDA’s contingency and carryover guidance and FNS budget/explanatory notes document the existence of reserve balances and multi-year appropriations — but they also make clear that those funds are not an open pot sufficient to cover an indefinite or very large shortfall. (In short: there may be some available balances, but they are limited in size and legal scope.)
USDA
https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/file … hatgpt.com
5) Legal interpretation & executive-branch positions matter (why USDA/DOJ may claim they “cannot” pay)
When courts order payment, that creates a legal judgment that the government should provide benefits. But the executive branch (USDA and DOJ) will analyse what legal authority permits payment and which fund payments may be charged to without running afoul of the Antideficiency Act. If USDA’s legal counsel (and DOJ) conclude that Section 32 or contingency balances cannot lawfully be used for the specific payments the court ordered (because statutes earmark those funds or because other legal restrictions apply), then paying from those sources would risk an Antideficiency Act violation. USDA’s publicly posted contingency/lapse plans and Office of General Counsel materials explain that the Department will follow OMB/GAO/DOJ guidance on what is permitted during a lapse — and if counsel says no lawful source exists, USDA will assert it cannot make arbitrary new obligations. See USDA’s contingency/lapse documents and OGC guidance.
USDA
https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/file … hatgpt.com
6) Practical arithmetic: even if some alternative funds were legally available, they may be insufficient
Even setting aside statutory earmarks and legal interpretation, the dollar math matters. SNAP monthly outlays have been on the order of roughly $8B–$9B per month (USDA/FNS budget documents and agency financial reports show monthly and annual spending levels). Available contingency reserves (single-year contingency balances, multi-year carryover, and limited Section 32 flexibility) often total far less than a full month or multiple months of program outlays. That means USDA may be able to cover a limited amount (for a short period) but not pay 100% of benefits indefinitely or fully absorb a major unanticipated order without a congressional appropriation. See USDA budget and agency financial documents showing contingency/reserve amounts and SNAP outlay levels.
USDA
7) Court orders vs. executive-branch obligations — enforcement and separation of powers issues
A court can order relief, but the relief must be implemented in a way consistent with statutes governing appropriations and executive-branch obligations. When courts order payment, the executive branch still must identify lawful funds to execute that order (or Congress must act to appropriate funds). The Antideficiency Act and related guidance create a structural check: the Executive cannot obligate funds in contravention of statutory appropriations rules merely because a court orders payment. This is why disputes about whether USDA “can” or “must” pay often turn on detailed statutory construction and on whether the specific funds identified are legally permissible for the ordered purpose. GAO/DOJ/USDA guidance on lapses and the Antideficiency Act explain this separation-of-powers tension.
Government Accountability Office
https://www.gao.gov/legal/appropriation … hatgpt.com
Key official sources (government only) — read first if you want the legal text and agency position
Antideficiency Act (statute text and code): 31 U.S.C. § 1341 et seq. (U.S. Code).
U.S. Code
GAO — “Lapses in Appropriations” and Antideficiency Act resources (summary of rules and exceptions).
Government Accountability Office
Section 32 statutory authorities and USDA discussion of permissible uses (Section 32 description / FSA / USDA white paper).
Farm Service Agency
USDA Food & Nutrition Service contingency and lapse plans (FNS contingency plan / USDA OGC lapse guidance).
USDA
USDA budget & agency financial reports showing SNAP outlays, contingency balances and program financials.
USDA
Bottom line (concise):
Legally, USDA can only pay from funds that Congress or statute lawfully made available for obligation. The Antideficiency Act forbids incurring new obligations without appropriations, Section 32 and contingency/multi-year balances are statutorily limited and finite, and USDA/DOJ legal opinions about the permissible use of those funds matter. So USDA’s position that it “cannot” pay 100% of a court-ordered amount without a clear lawful appropriation reflects (a) Antideficiency Act constraints, (b) statutory limits on alternative funding sources, and (c) the practical insufficiency or earmarking of the balances that might be available. If you want, I can now pull the exact statutory language for Section 32 (7 U.S.C. §612c), quote the specific Antideficiency Act provisions, and extract the lines from USDA’s contingency plan that explain which FNS activities are “excepted” or “suspendable” during a lapse — all with precise page citations to the government documents above. Which of those would you like first?You can "believe" all you want, but are nevertheless barking up the wrong tree. What you say is true about Trump's transfer of money to pay the troops, but not about SNAP. A different set of statutes apply, mainly t’s the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (codified at 7 U.S.C. § 2011 et seq.)—and the two clauses most often cited as the mandate to issue benefits are:
7 U.S.C. § 2014 (“Eligible households”) — includes the directive that “Assistance under this program shall be furnished to all eligible households who make application.”
Legal Information Institute
7 U.S.C. § 2017 (“Value of allotment/issuance”) — provides that households are to receive full monthly allotments for all months in their certification period (with limited exceptions for the initial month).
Legal Information Institute
the FACTS are:
You shared an opinion.
I share FACTS here, and above.
FACT, not opinion - A month of SNAP costs USDA about $8.3 B, which they are required by law to pay that SNAP.. There was $5.5 B in the APPROPRIATED “SNAP contingency fund/reserve” fund they could have tapped if they wanted to, but Trump told them no.
FACT, not opinion - There is another $32 B in the APPROPRIATED Section 32 which is routinely used to transfer money from by USDA, say to prop up WIC.
FACT, not opinion - Finally, there is about $6 B in the APPROPRIATED Multi-year “contingency” appropriations for SNAP they could have tapped.
So, yes, there is definitely more that needs to be said about it.If you learn to ask more detailed questions of AI, you will receive fuller answers.
NOTE edit --- It has been brought to my attention that my suggestion may be condescending. My comment was meant as a helpful suggestion on how to get deeper, more complete answers from AI. Hopefully, this note will offer my point more clearly.
At any rate, I am very satisfied with my research and see no point in continuing this conversation. This has reached the high court, and I am very confident they have done their research. I will await the decision.
The key difference comes down to statutory authority, purpose, and legal constraints:
1) Congressional appropriations vs. executive transfers
The Keep SNAP Funded Act of 2025 is a bill introduced by Congress that explicitly provides funding for SNAP. If passed, it creates new appropriations that the USDA can legally spend. It’s a lawful legislative action, with Congress authorizing exactly how much money and for what purpose.
In contrast, Trump transferring money to pay troops would involve the President using existing funds from other accounts without a new appropriation. Executive agencies cannot lawfully spend money outside the purposes Congress authorized, except in narrow cases (like emergencies for life or property under the Antideficiency Act). Using one account to pay for something else, like troops or SNAP, is legally constrained and could violate the Antideficiency Act.
2) Scope and statutory flexibility
Military funding often has specific statutory authorities or contingency funds, like the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) fund or certain Department of Defense accounts, which give the Secretary of Defense limited flexibility to cover critical payments in emergencies.
SNAP, on the other hand, is an entitlement program funded through annual appropriations. There are some contingency reserves, but they are much smaller, legally earmarked, and cannot cover the full monthly payments nationwide without a new appropriation from Congress.
3) Legal risk
Using Congress-passed appropriations (like the Keep SNAP Funded Act) is completely legal — no Antideficiency Act issue.
Executive reallocation (Trump transferring funds without congressional authorization) is legally risky. The administration could face GAO findings, Antideficiency Act violations, and court challenges, because the President cannot simply override Congress to fund programs the law says must be appropriated.
In short: the Keep SNAP Funded Act is Congress creating lawful funding, while transferring money unilaterally would be the executive branch trying to spend without congressional approval, which is restricted by law.
Here’s a clear side-by-side comparison showing why Congress funding SNAP is legal while executive transfer of funds (like Trump paying troops) is restricted:
Feature Keep SNAP Funded Act of 2025 (Congressional Bill) Executive Transfer of Funds (e.g., Trump paying troops)
Authority Source Passed or proposed by Congress. Creates a lawful appropriation for USDA to pay SNAP. Attempted by the President/agency using money from another account without new Congressional authorization.
Legal Basis Explicit statutory authorization. Congress decides how much money, for what purpose, and for how long. Restricted by Antideficiency Act (31 U.S.C. §1341): agencies cannot spend money outside its intended purpose. Only narrow exceptions apply (life/property emergencies).
Purpose Funds SNAP benefits for ongoing and missed months; clearly defined in the bill. Would reallocate money intended for one purpose (e.g., construction, research, or other accounts) to pay troops. Purpose may not match statutory limitations.
Scope/Flexibility Unlimited for the amount appropriated in the bill; fully covers SNAP until FY2026 funding is passed. Limited by account balances and statutory rules; may only cover partial payments or emergencies.
Cannot legally fund full program without Congress.
Legal Risk Minimal; spending is explicitly authorized. High: could trigger GAO findings, Antideficiency Act violations, or court challenges.
Examples Provides uninterrupted SNAP and retroactive payments during government shutdowns. Attempting to pay troops by moving money from other programs, potentially violating spending restrictions.
Antideficiency Act Concern None — funds appropriated by law. Major concern — spending beyond authorized purpose or without appropriation is prohibited.
Bottom line:
Congressional funding: fully legal, authorized, and covers the intended program.
Executive transfer without Congressional approval: risky, limited, and legally constrained; can only cover very narrow emergencies, not full program costs.What you refuse to recognize is that the other sources of funds within USDA, unlike what Trump did to pay the troops, is already authorized AND appropriated to be used for SNAP.
You can talk about the anti-deficiency law Trump has repeatedly violated all you want, but until you show those three sources of SNAP funds were not appropriated, you are wasting a lot of ink talking about the wrong thing.
The solution is simple - prove those funds were not appropriated for use for SNAP.I have over and over posted the amount left in the USDA fund at this point --- it will in no way come close to paying 100%. Yes, it was authorized to use --- and they have offered to totally deplete the fund --- the fund does not in any respect come to the amount needed to cover the cost that the court ordered. This will be tossed out at the Supreme Court; it is nonsensical. What was in the fund was ro little --- hopefully you can come to understand this.
Here is what the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) told the court, drawn from their filings and declarations — showing they acknowledged the contingency fund does not come close to covering full benefits:
USDA told the court that it intended to “deplete SNAP contingency funds completely and provide reduced SNAP benefits for November 2025.”
CBS News
NOTE ----USDA told states in a memo that the contingency fund held roughly $4.65 billion available for November SNAP payments, while full monthly benefits nationwide are estimated to require $8 billion–$9 billion.
CBS News Just has too little in the fund to pay what was needed.
In its appeal brief to the Supreme Court, the U.S. Department of Justice (on behalf of USDA) stated that “there is no lawful basis for an order that directs USDA to somehow find $4 billion in the metaphorical couch cushions” to cover full SNAP payments absent a proper appropriation.
CBS News
USDA indicated that even if the contingency funds were used up, “procedural difficulties” in state systems would mean that reduced benefits might still take “weeks to several months” to distribute.
Reuters
The fund did not hold sufficient funds --- period. I will not be responding to any other posts on the subject. I feel I have provided clearly and simply the facts.
So yes — the USDA is essentially admitting to the court that the available funds will not come close to paying 100% of SNAP benefits.
I have offered all the facts, and don't intend to go further with the conversation. I agree to disagree with your views.Your first three paragraphs support exactly what I said - all those funds are available to fund SNAP. I already gave you the amount needed $8.5 B and the amount available is $36.3 B, or thereabouts. There is way more than is needed for November.
Face it, you are trying to defend the indefensible when the FACTs simple don't support you.
The fact is, Trump doesn't want to spend it on hungry Americans even though it is legal to do so. What a guy.
These people don't care. They're on board with absolutely anything and everything Trump says or proposes or does.
I understand your argument, but the reality is more complicated than simply saying “the funds are appropriated and authorized for SNAP.” Yes, there are a few sources the USDA can tap, such as:
The SNAP contingency reserve — this is a limited, single-year reserve maintained to cover short-term fluctuations or emergencies. Official USDA budget documents (FY2024/FY2025 explanatory notes) show the contingency fund contains roughly $4–5 billion, while a full month of SNAP benefits nationwide costs $8–9 billion. Even if fully used, it cannot cover 100% of benefits.
Multi-year contingency or carryover appropriations — USDA has authority to use these balances for SNAP under specific conditions, but the amounts are finite and often earmarked for administrative or technical uses. FNS contingency plans confirm that these funds cannot legally be redirected to fully cover an unanticipated gap in program funding without violating statutory restrictions.
Section 32 permanent appropriation — this fund is drawn from customs receipts and is permanently available to USDA for certain commodity and child nutrition programs. However, the statute (7 U.S.C. §612c) limits Section 32 to specific uses like commodity purchases and child nutrition support. USDA and GAO guidance both make clear that Section 32 cannot lawfully be used as a general-purpose cash source to pay full SNAP benefits during a lapse.
Congress could allocate those other funds, but USDA can not just randomly use them; this is the law.
So the problem isn’t that these funds don’t exist; it’s that they are either legally restricted, finite, or insufficient to cover the court-ordered payments in full. Unlike the Department of Defense accounts that Trump used to pay troops, SNAP contingency and Section 32 funds are statutorily limited. Using them outside their authorized purpose could trigger Antideficiency Act violations, as USDA and DOJ have repeatedly noted in court filings.
In short, the claim that “they are already appropriated and authorized for SNAP” doesn’t mean there’s enough money to fully fund the program or that the USDA can legally spend it all in the context of a funding lapse. That’s why the courts, USDA, and DOJ all recognize the limits, and why Congressional action is ultimately required to pay full SNAP benefits.
"IF you learn to ask more detailed questions of AI, you will receive fuller answers. "
Condescending.
Related Discussions
- 58
What Do We Have Here? A Constitutional Crisis?
by Willowarbor 19 months ago
Vance's statement that "Judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power" has sparked concerns among legal experts, who suggest it could lead to a constitutional crisis or a breakdown of the American political system. This is due to the fundamental principle that...
- 49
Unelected Resistance: The Legal War Against President Trump’s Mandate
by Sharlee 13 months ago
Just a few months into President Trump’s second term, we’re witnessing an aggressive judicial campaign unlike anything in recent memory. Though elected by a majority of Americans hungry for change and committed to America First policies, President Trump’s ability to govern is being challenged not...
- 107
My Criticism of the Trump administration
by Jack Lee 8 years ago
As most of you know, I support many of Trump’s initiatives and I defend him here on hubpages when he is unfairly criticized by the media and others.You may also know I did not vote for Trump or Hillary in the 2016 election.Now, after over one year in office, and the signing of the latest Omnibus...
- 1805
Who Cares About Trump's Affair with a Porn Star?
by Allen Donald 8 years ago
Seriously, is this something anyone cares about?This was something President Trump engaged in before he was President, so it shouldn't factor into anything other than another indictment of his character.Remember, he cheated on his first wife with his second wife, so having sex with a porn star...
- 29
This is how the left sees America after the Tuesday election.
by Mike Russo 3 years ago
This is from Bill Maher's transcript and it is what I suspect will happen after the Tuesday ElectionTuesday is election day and I know I should probably tell you to vote and what honest to God is really the most important election ever. So okay yes you should vote, and it should be for the one...
- 103
Rogue Judges Contained
by Readmikenow 14 months ago
Thanks to the SCOTUS there will NO LONGER be any nationwide injunctions from rogue federal district court judges. I agree with the Supreme Court, these judges far exceeded their authority. There were also important rulings for parents and more.Nationwide injunctionsIn the most...