> Despite the government shutdown, the SNAP program isn’t out of money. In fact, it has $5 billion in contingency funds,[1] intended as a reserve to be tapped in emergencies. And if the imminent cutoff of crucial food aid for 40 million people isn’t an emergency, what is? The Department of Agriculture, which runs the program, also has the ability to maintain funding for a while by shifting other funds around. But Donald Trump has — quite possibly illegally — told the department not to tap those funds.[2]

See also perhaps a post from today:

> Why are these terrible things happening? At a basic level they’re happening because Republicans want them to happen. Drastic cuts in food stamps and health care programs were central planks in Project 2025, which is indeed the Trump administration’s policy platform, and were written into legislation in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that passed last summer.

[…]

> But there’s a further problem. Passing either a SNAP bill or a revised budget would require calling the House of Representatives back into session, which would in turn make it impossible for Mike Johnson, the speaker, to keep stalling the swearing-in of Adelita Grijalva, who won a special election more than 5 weeks ago.[1] And here’s the thing: Once sworn in, Grijalva would provide the decisive signature to trigger a vote in the House to release the Epstein files.[2]

* https://paulkrugman.substack.com/p/too-cruel-too-soon

It’s really fascinating where the highest percentages are from that map.

People are already scared - being rounded up (or threatened to be) on the street, military deployed to civilian neighborhoods, privacy overreaches that people are beginning to become aware of, stretching credit way beyond the point it should be stretched, barely making rent, sick - now you take away food? It's almost like this administration is trying to provoke a reaction. I can't think of an easier way to spark mass revolt, although I guess most snap recipients aren't probably of fighting age/fitness.

I thought I saw a judge rule snap must be funded.

edit: seems so:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-administration/federa...

Hunger isn't the right word here. SNAP benefits are not correlated with greater calorie consumption. That's not to minimize the pain. They do increase food quality, and they pay for other essentials due to the fungibility of money. But the hunger part is an empty emotional appeal.

The author proposes three solutions: the GOP could change Senate rules to fund SNAP, the Republicans draw on the $5B fund that can sustain SNAP at least temporarily, or they can pass legislation in the House to fund SNAP.

Of course, a handful of Democrat Senators could also vote to end the shutdown and that would fund SNAP, and everything else, too, at least for a few more weeks.

Both sides seem dug in right now. It's still not clear who I'll blink first.

Of course it's flagged, lol hacker news.