Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)Where the Hell Are These Headlines?!? (Nov 6 update) [View all]
Last edited Thu Nov 6, 2025, 11:35 PM - Edit history (1)
After the administration submitted it's plan to pay partial SNAP benefits (i.e., declared it's refusal to use Section 32 funds to pay full benefits, as required by law), I posted "Where the hell are these headlines?!?"
In addition a set of headline that should have been front page of any serious news outlet, I pointed out that:
- Funding Food Nutrition Service (FNS) Child Nutrition Programs is a key purpose for the Section 32 fund.
- 39% of SNAP recipients are children. That makes it a child nutrition program as important as WIC and school lunch programs.
- Section 32 is funded by 30% of customs duties from the prior year. Hasn't Trump been telling us that they've collected trillions in tariffs? Even if reality is closer to 100 billion, that means come 1/1/2025, the Section 32 fund is getting a deposit of about 30 billion that is COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT OF APPROPRIATIONS.
In a new order today, Judge McConnell made it crystal clear that Section 32 is to be tapped to fully fund SNAP.
The felon's regime has filed an appeal.
With these developments, I want to know, Where the Hell Are These Headlines?!?
THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION IS SO HELLBENT ON STARVING VULNERABLE ADULTS, CHILDREN, SENIORS, AND THE DISABLED THAT THEY ARE APPEALING A JUDGE'S ORDER TO FULLY FUND SNAP.
THE ADMINISTRATION CRUELLY AND ABSURDLY CLAIMED IT WOULD BE AN "UNACCEPTABLE RISK" TO FEED THE VULNERABLE
The claim -- that taking 6 billion from a fund that currently has 23 billion and will be bolstered by 30% of the tariffs collected in 2024 would represent an unacceptable risk -- didn't pass the smell test in court.
In addition to the headlines above, I still want to know why we're not seeing this headline (from the original post):
THE USDA HAS BEEN HOARDING SECTION 32 FUNDS INSTEAD OF USING THEM AS INTENDED, TO PURCHASE FOOD FROM FARMERS FOR FOOD BANKS, SCHOOL LUNCHES, AND OTHER PROGRAMS THAT FEED VULNERABLE AMERICANS
And here's another new one:
COURT REBUKES THE ADMINISTRATION FOR THE IRREPARABLE HARM THEY ARE INFLICTING WITH INTOLERABLE AND POLITICALLY MOTIVATED DELAY TACTICS
This from CNBC
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2025/11/06/snap-trump-food-stamps-shutdown.html
"The evidence shows that people will go hungry, food pantries will be overburdened, and needless suffering will occur" if SNAP is not fully funded, said McConnell, who noted in a written order that more than half of the program's recipients are children, seniors and veterans.
"While the President of the United States professes a commitment to helping those it
serves, the government's actions tell a different story," McConnell wrote in that order.
"Faced with a choice between advancing relief and entrenching delay, it chose the latter an outcome that predictably magnifies harm and undermines the very purpose of the program it administers."
The order came after plaintiffs in the case urged him to reject the administration's plan, a disclosed in a court filing on Monday, to pay only partial benefits.
The Trump administration later Thursday as the 1st Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to overturn McConnell's order.
McConnell during Thursday's hearing pointed to a Truth Social post by President Donald Trump, who on Tuesday said that SNAP benefits "will be given on only when the Radical Left Democrats open up government, which they can easily do, and not before!"
Trump's post seemed to contradict statements by administration lawyers that the benefits would be partially paid for the month. The White House later said it would comply with McConnell's order but added that it would take to issue the partial benefits to recipients.
But McConnell at the hearing said Trump's post was effectively an admission that the administration intended to defy his prior order to seek out all possible funding sources so that full benefits could be paid.
"While the President of the United States professes a commitment to helping those it
serves, the government's actions tell a different story," McConnell wrote in that order.
"Faced with a choice between advancing relief and entrenching delay, it chose the latter an outcome that predictably magnifies harm and undermines the very purpose of the program it administers."
The order came after plaintiffs in the case urged him to reject the administration's plan, a disclosed in a court filing on Monday, to pay only partial benefits.
The Trump administration later Thursday as the 1st Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to overturn McConnell's order.
McConnell during Thursday's hearing pointed to a Truth Social post by President Donald Trump, who on Tuesday said that SNAP benefits "will be given on only when the Radical Left Democrats open up government, which they can easily do, and not before!"
Trump's post seemed to contradict statements by administration lawyers that the benefits would be partially paid for the month. The White House later said it would comply with McConnell's order but added that it would take to issue the partial benefits to recipients.
But McConnell at the hearing said Trump's post was effectively an admission that the administration intended to defy his prior order to seek out all possible funding sources so that full benefits could be paid.
5 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
perhaps your headlines could be condensed and opinion removed. where should they appear?
msongs
Nov 6
#1
Each captures context/background for events absent from mainstream news and commentary.
pat_k
Nov 6
#2