Currently browsing posts about: Trump

I’ve been trying to keep track of what’s happening with SNAP, but it hasn’t been easy.

Fortunately, Jerry Hagstrom’s Hagstrom’s Report “Ag News As It Happens” does the heavy lifting.

But first, a brief recap.

The current government shutdown is about SNAP benefits.  Republicans want to cut benefits; Democrats don’t.

The Trump administration said it could not use emergency funds to pay SNAP benefits during the shutdown, because Congress has not appropriated money for SNAP for fiscal year 2026.

Friday, October 31

Two federal judges disagreed.  They said USDA should issue at least partial benefits through November.

• Commonwealth of Massachusetts v U.S. Department of Agriculture: Memorandum and Order
•  Speaker Johnson and Secretary Rollins Remarks on Day 31 of Government Shutdown (video)
• The New York Times : Government Ordered to Pay Food Stamp Benefits During Shutdown

Also, President Trump said he wanted SNAP benefits paid.

Our Government lawyers do not think we have the legal authority to pay SNAP with certain monies we have available, and now two Courts have issued conflicting opinions on what we can and cannot do. I do NOT want Americans to go hungry just because the Radical Democrats refuse to do the right thing and REOPEN THE GOVERNMENT. Therefore, I have instructed our lawyers to ask the Court to clarify how we can legally fund SNAP as soon as possible.

In the meantime, the USDA issued a sharp edict to retailers: Do not give any special discounts to SNAP recipients.

Saturday, November 1

Leah Douglas writes in Reuters:  As US federal food aid lapses, most states unable to fill the void

Just five states, Delaware, New Mexico, Louisiana, Virginia and Vermont, and the District of Columbia have said they will pay for some or all of the November food aid, according to a Reuters review of state websites and public statements. The rest have said they will not pay for the benefits due to technical or cost barriers, or provided no explanation.

The USDA said in an October 24 memo that it will not reimburse states if they cover the cost of benefits.

• CNN: Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent won’t say whether Trump will use emergency funds to restore SNAP benefits
• NBC News: Trump administration faces Monday deadline to respond to judge’s SNAP order
• Associated Press: SNAP benefits cut off during shutdown, driving long lines at food pantries
• Politico: Trump admin will partially fund November SNAP benefits

Tuesday, November 4

Here is President Trump on Truth Social:

SNAP BENEFITS, which increased by Billions and Billions of Dollars (MANY FOLD!) during Crooked Joe Biden’s disastrous term in office (Due to the fact that they were haphazardly “handed” to anyone for the asking, as opposed to just those in need, which is the purpose of SNAP!), will be given only when the Radical Left Democrats open up government, which they can easily do, and not before! Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Yes, SNAP benefits increased—during the pandemic.  No, they were not haphazardly “handed” out for the asking.

If Trump will not provide benefits during the shutdown, let’s hope the courts intervene.

Tomorrow: the McCarthy-era rhetoric

According to the Wall Street Journal (sent to me by Lindsey Smith Taillie, who is quoted in the story), the USDA will no longer be collecting data on food insecurity after this year.

“This nonstatutory report became overly politicized and upon subsequent review, was unnecessary to carry out the work of the Department,” USDA spokesman Alec Varsamis said.

He added that the 2024 report will be released on Oct. 22, but the 2025 report has been discontinued.

I then received USDA’s official notice.

Costly and politicized, yes.  But redundant and fear-mongering?  Hardly.

It’s easy to understand this kind of rhetoric.

The last report, Household Food Security in the United States in 2023, published this extremely inconvenient finding.

It’s pretty hard to justify cutting food assistance funding when food insecurity is rising to levels like those in the 2008 recession.

Cuts and changes to SNAP are leaving a lot up to states, which will have a hard time with it.

If you live in an Orwellian universe, you can use not measuring to pretend that food insecurity does not exist and certainly that it is not increasing as a result of your policies.

It took a long time for the anti-hunger community to achieve federal documentation of this enormous social problem.  I suppose we will now have to go back to the old days of local anti-hunger reports.  See my comments (with Sally Guttmacher) on state hunger reports.

Truly, we are living in Orwellian times.  May we find our way out of them soon.

Michael Jacobson, founder and former president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, is now promoting development of a National Food Museum.  One of its projects is keeping score on administration food policies.

He lists them as positive or negative, like this.

The most recent entry is dated June 26, a negative: the huge cut in SNAP benefits.

Alas, the negatives far outweigh the positives.  Take a look.

Thanks to Food Fix for this collection of tracking sites

• STAT News: Isabella Cueto’s report on MAHA’s minimal progress
• HHS: “MAHA in Action” public health wins (Food Fix says this is more like a campaign site).
• FDA:  Food industry pledges to remove food dyes (promises, but not much action yet)

The USDA has just announced a plan for reorganization that will move most of the agency out of Washington, DC, as flagrant an act of self-destruction as can be imagined.

The ostensible reason for this is to “To bring USDA closer to the people it serves while also providing a more affordable cost of living for USDA employees.”

Forthcoming November 11, 2025: What To Eat Now

To me personally, the big news last week (besides my profile in the New York Times) is the announcement that the USDA plans to move its headquarters out of Washington, DC to three locations yet to be determined.

USDA is expected to offload one of its two Washington headquarters buildings, according to two employees familiar with the matter.

The relocations will accompany widespread layoffs at the department, according to four officials made aware of the plans, though the exact number is not yet clear. Those cuts are expected in late April or early May.

Some employees have been told to expect the department to cut back to fiscal 2019 staffing levels—which would lead to USDA slashing around 9,000 of its 98,000 employees—while others have been told there is a an overall federal workforce reduction number the administration has developed and the department will do its part proportionally to meet that target.

My translation: I haven’t been able to confirm this story, but what better way to get USDA employees to quit en masse.  This worked during Trump I to dismantle the Economic Research Service, a national treasure in my view.  I complained early and often about its transfer to Kansas City, MO.

As this article explains,

In 2019, the department relocated the Agriculture Department’s Economic Research Service and National Institute of Food and Agriculture to Kansas City, Mo., over the objections of employees and some lawmakers. Following the move, both agencies lost more than half of their staff, leading to a significant loss of productivity from which it took the agencies years to recover. Under President Biden, both agencies moved their headquarters back to Washington while maintaining their Kansas City offices.

I would say (and the Government Accountability Office agrees) the ERS has never recovered.  It still produces technical reports, but no longer publishes the kind of analytical pieces that I found so valuable to my work.

It’s fine to move government offices to the middle of the country.  Anything to help repopulate middle America is a good thing.

But this move has only one real purpose: to reduce staff.

This means reducing meat inspectors, and people who help participants use food assistance programs.  It means getting rid of agricultural and other USDA-supported researchers.  Basically, it means getting rid of anyone good enough to get another job without having to relocate.

Even without this, USDA staff are quitting in droves: USDA employees head for the doors as potential RIFs [reduction in forces] loom

Thousands of USDA employees are planning to leave the agency through a deferred resignation program that could challenge the department’s ability to fulfill critical functions such as food import and export inspections. According to one report, 16,000 USDA employees have opted for buyouts over two rounds.

I considered the transfer of the ERS to Kansas to be a national tragedy.  This is another one.

I’ve written previously about the list of words that automatically disqualify applicants for federal grants, but the New York Times has now published a more complete list of about 200 forbidden terms, along with examples of editing of federal websites.

These are perceived as “woke,” which the Trump administration especially opposes.

But many of these terms describe reality.

As a long time public health advocate, I take this quite personally.

Now, you can’t research or write about anything having to do with underrepresented minorities or inequality, but you also can’t do anything related to terms like these.

• activists
• advocates
• at risk
• barrier
• climate science
• confirmation bias
• female
• health disparity
• institutional
• mental health
• political
• privilege
• sociocultural
• systemic
• undervalued
• women

This is right out of George Orwell’s 1984.  It would be funny, if it weren’t having an effect.  I know of at least one instance of a federal scientist had to remove his name from a paper because it dealt with inequity—a topic very much on this list.

This kind of group-think deserves ridicule and firm pushback.

I don’t know about anyone else, but I intend to keep writing about these issues and flaunt the scarlet A—for Activist and Advocate. (along with a W for woman).

An anonymous reader sent me this list, purportedly from the National Science Foundation, of words that disqualify scientists from submitting papers for publication, and applicants from getting grants.  The reader also sent the NSF decision tree for use of these words.  I cannot trace the original source of this material.  If you have any information about whether this is for real, please let me know.  My favorite words on this list?  Advocate and women.

The disqualifying words:

• activism
• activists
• advocacy
• advocate
• advocates
• antiracist
• barrier
• barriers
• biased
• biased toward
• biases
• biases towards
• bipoc
• black and latinx
• community diversity
• community equity
• cultural differences
• cultural heritage
• culturally responsive
• disabilities
• disability
• discriminated
• discrimination
• discriminatory
• diverse backgrounds
• diverse communities
• diverse community
• diverse group
• diverse groups
• diversified
• diversify
• diversifying
• diversity and inclusion
• diversity equity
• enhance the diversity
• enhancing diversity
• equal opportunity
• equality
• equitable
• equity
• ethnicity
• excluded
• female
• females
• fostering inclusivity
• gender
• gender diversity
• genders
• hate speech
• hispanic minority
• historically
• implicit bias
• implicit biases
• inclusion
• inclusive
• inclusiveness
• inclusivity
• increase diversity
• increase the diversity
• indigenous community
• inequalities
• inequality
• inequitable
• inequities
• institutional
• lgbt
• marginalize
• marginalized
• minorities
• minority
• multicultural
• polarization
• political
• prejudice
• privileges
• promoting diversity
• race and ethnicity
• racial
• racial diversity
• racial inequality
• racial justice
• racially
• racism
• sense of belonging
• sexual preferences
• social justice
• socio cultural
• socio economic
• sociocultural
• socioeconomic status
• stereotypes
• systemic
• trauma
• under appreciated
• under represented
• under served
• underrepresentation
• underrepresented
• underserved
• undervalued
• victim
• women
• women and underrepresented

The NSF decision tree for disqualifying papers or grant applications using those words:

Tomorrow: How to comment on all of this.

Resources sent by readers

• A Washington Post story on the list
• The likely effects of the list on researchers at UC San Diego
• What caused all this, according to the Senate Commerce Committee
• The full report of the Senate Commerce Committee (see Appendix B for much longer list of trigger words)