On Thursday, it became clear that Trump and congressional Republicans have decided to starve Americans to bully Democrats into capitulating in the shutdown negotiations. Funding for SNAP food subsidies will expire on Friday. The SNAP program has $6 billion in reserves to continue SNAP benefits during emergencies. Trump and congressional Republicans refuse to release SNAP’s emergency funding because (in the words of Speaker Mike Johnson), that would “reduce pressure for [Democrats to] reopen the government.”
Americans understand what is happening: Trump and Republicans are using Americans suffering from food insecurity as hostages in the shutdown negotiations. The terminally unctuous Vice President, JD Vance, claimed that Democrats are holding hungry Americans hostage by suing to force the government to continue funding SNAP benefits.
If that last sentence doesn’t make sense, that proves that you are paying attention. Democrats are suing to force the government to continue funding SNAP**,** while the administration is opposing those efforts. There is no interpretation of those facts that suggests Democrats are holding Americans as hostages for political gain. See CNN, Democratic-led states sue Trump administration to keep SNAP food assistance funds flowing. Instead, the opposite is true.
At the hearing on the Democratic lawsuit to continue SNAP funding, the federal judge presiding over the matter grew increasingly frustrated with nonsensical arguments by DOJ lawyers, who asserted that they couldn’t use SNAP emergency funding to keep the program open during an emergency. See NYTimes, Judge Skeptical Over Trump Administration Decision to Suspend Food Stamps.
Per the Times,
Throughout the Thursday hearing, Judge Indira Talwani of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts frequently expressed skepticism about the administration’s claims. At one point, the judge said she saw no reason the government could not tap its own emergency reserves, given the nature and duration of the fiscal crisis.
“Congress has put money in an emergency fund,” she said. “It’s hard for me to understand how this isn’t an emergency, when there’s no money, and a lot of people are needing their SNAP benefits.”
As I write this newsletter on Thursday evening, Judge Talwani has yet to issue a ruling, but it appears that she will order the government to continue funding SNAP benefits. It seems equally clear that the Trump administration will do everything in its power to prevent funding of SNAP, thus pushing food-insecure Americans to the brink of starvation.
I have received two reader emails over the last three days that deserve to be shared with the reader community. A reader who is involved with MAZON: A Jewish Response to Hunger emphasized the impact on military families of suspending SNAP benefits. A recent press release by MAZON, through its president, Abby J. Liebman, said the following (in part):
This reckless government shutdown is revealing to the world what we have known for years: that far too many military families are living on the brink, often just one missed paycheck away from hunger and poverty. [¶]
Before the shutdown, according to the Pentagon’s own figures, nearly one in four military families struggled with food insecurity. This is shameful. [¶]
Without getting their full paychecks, the crisis of hunger will come to the doorsteps of many, many more military families. [¶]
We are not stupid, and neither are our servicemembers and their families. Political games, stunts, and false philanthropy will not solve the crisis that has been brought to our doorsteps by the Trump administration. If they actually want to support our troops, then fund SNAP and other basic food assistance programs, end this ridiculous shutdown, and actually do something about this long-standing problem.
MAZON has a tool that helps concerned citizens contact their representatives in Congress to urge them to fund SNAP. See MAZON, Urge Congress to Fund November SNAP Benefits and Avoid Deepening Hunger Crisis.
Reader Susan M. of Indivisible forwarded an announcement from a consortium of national grassroots organizations that are taking action to support those affected by any gap in SNAP benefits. The announcement says, in part,
With SNAP Ending November 1, No Kings Calls for Mass Mutual Aid in Communities Across the Country.
42 million Americans set to lose SNAP benefits and go without food on November 1; 25 states suing USDA for withholding food aid funding
The No Kings Alliance is the new rapid response arm of the No Kings movement. There are three ways to take action: —Donate to your local food bank. Support your local food bank or mutual aid network with a financial gift to help feed families directly impacted by the shutdown. —Collect and distribute to your local community shelter. Donate food, clothing, menstrual products, and any other essential supplies to existing local food banks or shelters. Check with your local organizations first to see what they need most. —Host a give-back drive in your community. Visit No Kings Alliance to learn more and start a food/supply drive. Every few weeks, the No Kings Alliance will announce new opportunities for direct action in support of each other and to push back against President Trump’s authoritarian power grabs… Visit NoKings.org/alliance to learn more.
Help in any way you can—by contacting your congressional representative or by donating to or hosting a “give back” drive in your community that will help Americans fighting food insecurity during the shutdown (and beyond).
I agree with Abby Liebman: The American people are not stupid. They know who is responsible for using food insecurity as a political weapon during the shutdown. Moreover, we must remember that the “shutdown” isn’t the usual “political” disagreement. Trump is refusing to follow the Constitution every day of his presidency.
If Democrats in the Senate capitulate to Republicans by agreeing to a “continuing resolution,” they are—in effect—agreeing to Trump’s continued dictatorial regime that refuses to acknowledge constitutional limits on his power.
Democrats must stand united and use the filibuster to begin to pare back Trump’s unlawful actions. In the meantime, Americans are blaming Trump and congressional Republicans for the shutdown . . . See today’s story from ABC News, Americans increasingly concerned about government shutdown, more blame Republicans and Trump than Democrats: Poll.
Update: Late on Thursday evening, Trump called on Republican Senators to repeal the filibuster rule in the Senate.
See CNBC, Trump calls for U.S. Senate to scrap filibuster rule.
Per CNBC, Trump posted the following on social media:
It is now time for the Republicans to play their “TRUMP CARD,” and go for what is called the Nuclear Option — Get rid of the Filibuster, and get rid of it, NOW.
A carve-out to the so-called “filibuster rule” can be created by a vote of only 51 members of the Senate (an odd fact, given that the filibuster on a particular piece of legislation requires 60 votes to end debate and bring a matter to the floor). See GovFacts, The Filibuster and Cloture: How the Senate Really Works.
A “carve-out” is created by establishing a “new precedent” that the filibuster no longer applies to a particular class of legislation. As explained by the GovFacts article linked above, “If a simple majority votes to overturn the Presiding Officer’s ruling, new precedent is set.”
In effect, Trump is calling on Republicans to create a “carve out” in the filibuster rule so that appropriations bills (and continuing resolutions) can be brought to the floor for a vote with a simple majority (51-49, or 51-50 if the Vice President breaks a tie).
Senate Republicans could create a carve-out to eliminate the filibuster in a matter of minutes on Friday, November 1.
Trump’s call for ending the filibuster suggests that he understands Republicans are losing the battle in the court of public opinion, and he wants the shutdown to end, now.
There are many cascading consequences to eliminating the filibuster for appropriations bills. First, the Senate could immediately pass the continuing resolution previously passed by the House, thereby reopening the government. Healthcare subsidies would vanish and premiums would skyrocket immediately—a cause-and-effect that would unmistakably belong to Trump and the GOP.
In addition, there would be no reason for Speaker Mike Johnson to hold the House in recess. After all, Congress has yet to pass a single appropriations bill out of the twelve bills required to enact a budget.
If the House comes back into session, Rep. Adelita Grijalva would be sworn in and sign the discharge petition, which would take effect immediately. Mike Johnson could try to delay a vote on the underlying legislation, but he will be under tremendous pressure from his caucus to schedule the vote within a month or so. See Congressional Research Service, How Measures Are Brought to the House Floor: A Brief Introduction | Congress.gov | Library of Congress.
Congress would also be under pressure to produce final appropriations bills, which enact the provisions of the Big Ugly Bill. In short order, the draconian provisions of the Big Ugly Bill will begin to impact the American people, who will have the opportunity to provide their feedback in November 2026.
I expect that many commentators (and readers) will argue that ending the filibuster is a bad development because it “protects the rights of the minority.” That is historically not a true statement. Instead, the filibuster makes an antidemocratic institution—the Senate—even more antidemocratic by allowing Senators who represent only 20% of the US population to control legislation coming from the Senate. See *Medium (*01/26/2021), Republican Senators Representing Just 20% of the US Population Can Filibuster and Block Legislation.
Another objection to eliminating the filibuster is that it forces “bipartisanship.” That statement is true only when Democrats hold power. When Republicans hold power, they tend not to engage in bipartisanship due to the filibuster. See, e.g., the current shutdown.
Senior Pentagon officer steps down in dispute over long-term military strategy
Under Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, the US military is involved in almost daily killings of noncombatant civilians in international waters. Those killings appear to be unjustified under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and, therefore, meet the definition of murder under the military’s own justice system.
It is puzzling that career military officers in the chain of command have participated in such blatantly illegal activity. Several weeks ago, the admiral in charge of US Southern Command (SOUTHCOM), Adm. Alvin Holsey, resigned two years early in his four-year stint as the top military leader in SOUTHCOM. Admiral’s Mystery Retirement Amid Secret War Leaves SOUTHCOM in Turmoil.
Admiral Holsey’s abrupt retirement sparked speculation that he disagreed with the unjustified killings of non-combatant civilians in the SOUTHCOM area under his supervision. Holsey’s resignation was the first sign that military leaders may be objecting to the killings.
On Thursday, a three-star Lieutenant General, Joe McGee, resigned after disagreements with the Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Dan Caine. See The Hill, 3-star Lt. Gen. Joe McGee steps down amid reported friction with Pete Hegseth, Dan Caine.
General McGee oversaw “strategy, plans, and policy” in the Pentagon. Per The Hill,
McGee objected to Hegseth and Caine on a range of issues, including the Trump administration’s strikes against alleged drug-smuggling boats in the Caribbean . . . .
The second resignation in a month among senior military leaders may suggest that those leaders are no longer willing to engage in operations that they believe violate the Uniform Code of Military Justice. We need more officers to follow their conscience and refuse to obey unlawful orders to kill civilians.
Study confirms that mainstream media underreported No Kings Day
The Media and Democracy Project reports what we all saw: Major media underreported the scale and dispersion of No Kings Day protests. See Analysis of “No Kings” coverage: The New York Times and WSJ editors continue to minimize coverage of massive pro-democracy demonstrations. Local outlets continue to shine.
Per the report,
[I]nfluential media institutions that are failing to accurately describe the constitutional crisis or stand up for American democracy in its existential battle against oligarchy and the fascist MAGA movement are also insufficiently covering the pro-democracy movement. Combined, these media failures are enabling the dismantling of American democracy.
While local outlets generally did a good job of reporting on protests, the New York Times and Wall Street Journal received poor marks.
Per the report,
New York Times, Wall Street Journal and USA Today leadership minimized coverage of massive national popular demonstrations mobilizing in support of democracy on 10/18/25 “No Kings”.
Times and Journal editors made no effort to capture the patriotic pro-democracy energy of No Kings to refute the Trump - MAGA propaganda talking points “hate-America” “paid protestors” that preceded the demonstrations, and sought to undermine the legitimacy of the day of action.
So, it is not your imagination. We are not only resisting Trump’s unlawful agenda, but corporate media is sitting on the sidelines in the fight for democracy.
Concluding Thoughts
Eliminating the filibuster in the short term could be a painful process. But if Republicans use the absence of the filibuster to pass a reactionary Christian nationalist agenda, they will hasten the day when they will be forever relegated to a minority party.
Moreover, we must have enough confidence in our future prospects to look forward to the day (soon) when Democrats regain control of the House, Senate, and the Presidency.
With the filibuster gone, we can pass the For the People Act, the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, adopt national standards for reproductive freedom that would re-establish Roe v. Wade as the law of the land, and expand the Supreme Court. The For the People Act would establish national redistricting standards by requiring every state to create independent commissions for creating congressional districts.
Republicans have used the filibuster for a century to block civil rights for Black and Latino voters, women, and LGBTQ people (among many others). Abolishing the filibuster will allow Democrats to more rapidly reestablish the rule of law. As I said, let’s have confidence in ourselves and our future. If Republicans abolish the filibuster to end the government shutdown, we should look forward with confidence to restoring the rule of law in America
Talk to you tomorrow!
Pro-democracy Photos
Sonoma, CA
Port Charlotte, FL
Greenfield, MA (photos by John Rae)
Naples, FL
Williamsburg, Virginia
London, England:
Tajikistan: Re: America’s Soft Power: We, Phillips Renner Foundation (www.p-r-foundation.org) were giving pro bono dental care to 2,920 children in Tajikistan for 5 days while you were protesting [on No Kings Day]. Our team of 11 came from mostly the USA but also from Canada, Australia, and Croatia. . . . I wept every night thinking about the state of our nation, but I read your post every single day. We will win. Signed, Purobi P.
Daily Dose of Perspective
From Today’s Edition Newsletter via this RSS feed