SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
center for american progress
'Don't Let Kids Go Hungry': Trump Panned Over Not Using Emergency Fund for SNAP
The Trump administration "just illegally reversed course," said Democrats on the House Agriculture Committee. "They're choosing to cut food assistance for 42 million Americans."
Oct 25, 2025
Elected Democrats and other critics on Saturday continued to call out the Trump administration for refusing to use contingency funding to pay for food stamps during the US government shutdown, imperiling hunger relief for about 42 million low-income people.
In November, Americans who receive Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits won't get their food aid if Congress doesn't reach an agreement to fund the government, which shut down at the beginning of the month due to a battle over healthcare.
"Congress established an emergency fund to ensure that millions of Americans on SNAP continue to receive nutrition assistance when funding expires in November," Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who caucuses with Democrats, said on social media Saturday.
Sanders—the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions—then appealed directly to Republican President Donald Trump: "Don't let kids go hungry. Use these emergency funds to feed low-income families."
Throughout the week, left-leaning groups, congressional Democrats, and Democratic governors of states including Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Jersey, have called for using the contingency fund.
Sharon Parrott, a former Office of Management and Budget (OMB) official who is now president of the think tank Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, took aim at US Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins in a Wednesday statement.
"Secretary Rollins' claim that the Trump Administration is unable to deliver November SNAP benefits during a shutdown is unequivocally false," Parrott said. "In fact, the administration is legally required to use contingency reserves—billions of dollars that Congress provided for use when SNAP funding is inadequate that remain available during the shutdown—to fund November benefits for the 1 in 8 Americans who need SNAP to afford their grocery bill."
"Speaking as a former OMB official, I know from experience that the federal government has the authority and the tools it needs during a shutdown to get these SNAP funds to families," she continued. "It would be unconscionable for the administration to go out of its way to threaten millions of children, seniors, veterans, people with disabilities, parents, and workers with hunger, rather than taking all legal steps available to provide food assistance to people who need it."
That same day, a trio of experts at the Center for American Progress also argued that the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) "is legally obligated to use" the contingency resources. They further highlighted that "the Trump administration has spent the entire year endangering the food security of millions of Americans. From terminating funding used to purchase food for schools and food banks to passing the largest cuts in SNAP history, the administration has made it clear that its goal is to take food away from hungry families—and that sentiment is extending to the USDA's approach to the shutdown."
US House Agriculture Committee Ranking Member Angie Craig (D-Minn.) and Subcommittee on Nutrition and Foreign Agriculture Ranking Member Jahana Hayes (D-Conn.), along with nearly every other Democrat in the chamber, sent a letter to Rollins on Friday. They wrote:
USDA's shutdown plan acknowledges that "congressional intent is evident that SNAP's operations should continue since the program has been provided with multiyear contingency funds." USDA still has significant funding available in SNAP's contingency reserve—which Congress provides precisely for this reason—that can be used to fund the bulk of November benefits.
We urge USDA to use these funds for November SNAP benefits and issue clear guidance to states on how to navigate benefit issuance. Additionally, while the contingency reserve will not cover November benefits in full, we urge USDA to use its statutory transfer authority or an other legal authority at its disposal to supplement these dollars and fully fund November benefits.
As Politico reported Friday, "The contingency fund for SNAP currently holds roughly $5 billion, which would not cover the full $9 billion the administration would need to fund November benefits."
"Even if the administration did partially tap those funds, it would take weeks to dole out the money on a pro rata basis—meaning most low-income Americans would miss their November food benefits anyway," the outlet explained. "In order to make the deadline, the Trump administration would have needed to start preparing for partial payments weeks ago, which it has not done."
Politico and other outlets obtained a brief memo from the USDA blaming Democrats for the disruption and claiming that "contingency funds are not legally available to cover regular benefits."
"SNAP contingency funds are only available to supplement regular monthly benefits when amounts have been appropriated for, but are insufficient to cover, benefits," the memo states. "The contingency fund is not available to support [fiscal year] 2026 regular benefits, because the appropriation for regular benefits no longer exists."
"Instead, the contingency fund is a source of funds for contingencies, such as the Disaster SNAP program, which provides food purchasing benefits for individuals in disaster areas, including natural disasters like hurricanes, tornadoes, and floods, that can come on quickly and without notice," it continues. "For example, Hurricane Melissa is currently swirling in the Caribbean and could reach Florida."
The memo adds that "this administration will not allow Democrats to jeopardize funding for school meals and infant formula in order to prolong their shutdown."
After also obtaining the memo, CNN asked Trump if he would direct the USDA to fund SNAP next month. The president—who left for Asia later Friday—claimed, "Yeah, everybody is going to be in good shape, yep," without offering any details.
Responding to the memo on social media Saturday, Democratic members of the House Agriculture Committee said that the Trump administration "just illegally reversed course by deciding not to provide food assistance to Americans next month. They have the funding and the legal authority to provide full benefits. They chose not to use it. They're choosing to cut food assistance for 42 million Americans."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Tariff Regime Slammed as Manufacturing Jobs Crater
"The manufacturing sector is struggling more than the rest of the labor market under Trump's tariffs, and manufacturing workers' wage growth is stagnating."
Sep 05, 2025
US President Donald Trump's tariff policies, imposing levies as high as 50% on the United States' trading partners, have not proven compatible with his campaign promise to turn the US back into a "manufacturing powerhouse," as Friday's jobs report showed.
The overall analysis was grim, with the economy adding just 22,000 jobs last month, but manufacturing employment in particular has declined since Trump made his April 2 "Liberation Day" announcement of tariffs on countries including Canada and Mexico.
Since then, the president has introduced new rounds of tariffs on imports from countries he claims have treated the US unfairly, and all the while manufacturers have tightened their belts to cope with the higher cost of supplies and materials.
Overall manufacturing employment has plummeted by 42,000 jobs, while job openings and new hires have declined by 76,000 and 18,000, respectively, according to the Center for American Progress (CAP), which released a jobs report analysis titled Trump's Trade War Squeezes Middle-Class Manufacturing Employment on Friday.
"The manufacturing sector is struggling more than the rest of the labor market under Trump's tariffs, and manufacturing workers' wage growth is stagnating," said CAP.
Last month, the sector lost 12,000 jobs, while wages for manufacturing workers stagnated.
In line with other private employees, workers in the sector saw their wages go up just 10 cents from July, earning an average of $35.50 per hour.
"Despite Trump's claims that his policies will reignite the manufacturing industry in the United States, his policies have achieved the opposite," wrote policy analyst Kennedy Andara and economist Sara Estep at CAP.
The findings are in line with the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas' Texas Manufacturing Survey, which was taken from August 12-20 and found that 72% of manufacturing firms say the tariffs have had a negative impact on their business.
"The argument is: We're all meant to sacrifice a bit, so that tariffs can help rebuild American manufacturing. Let's ask American manufacturers whether they're helping," said University of Michigan economics professor Justin Wolfers on social media, sharing a graph that showed the survey's findings.
As Philip Luck, a former deputy chief economist with the US State Department, told the CBC last month, Trump has been promising "millions and millions of jobs" will result from his tariff regime, but those promises are out of step with the reality of manufacturing in 2025.
"We do [manufacturing] now with very few workers, we do it in a very automated way," Luck told the CBC. "Even if we do increase manufacturing I don't know that we're going to increase jobs along with it."
The outlet noted that while the number of Americans employed in manufacturing peaked in 1979, the value of manufacturing production has continuously trended up since then.
Michael Hicks, director of the Center for Business and Economic Research at Ball State University, told the CBC that "no treasure trove of jobs" is likely to come out of Trump's tariffs.
The president "walked into an economy that was seeing the largest manufacturing production in American history," Hicks said. "That is really a testament to how productive American workers are, the quality of the technology, and capital investment in manufacturing."
But the rate of hiring at manufacturing firms is far below its 2024 level, said CAP, revealing the negative impact of Trump's tariff regime.
US Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) pointed to nearly 800 workers who lost their jobs in the manufacturing sector this week, including 120 whose company's sawmill closed in Darlington, South Carolina; 101 who worked at an electronics assembly plant for Intervala in Manchester, New Hampshire; and 170 whose sawmill positions were eliminated in Estill, South Carolina.
The US Supreme Court is expected to soon review Trump's tariffs after the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled last week that many of them are illegal.
Keep ReadingShow Less
People in Every US Congressional District Set to Be Harmed by Trump-GOP Attack on Healthcare
"Every member of Congress, regardless of party or geography, will see tens of thousands of their constituents lose coverage under this law," says new research.
Sep 05, 2025
As Republican lawmakers attempt to rebrand the budget law that slashed $1 trillion for Medicaid to help pay for tax cuts for the rich—unable to ignore the blaring message from angry town hall participants and polls showing Americans do not support the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act—research released Friday suggests the GOP should brace for even more outrage from voters across the country.
According to the analysis by the Center for American Progress (CAP), no state or congressional district will be spared from the cuts the OBBBA makes to healthcare, and every district in the US is projected to see a rise in the number of uninsured people by 2034.
"Every member of Congress, regardless of party or geography, will see tens of thousands of their constituents lose coverage under this law," said the group.
CAP's report builds on analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which found last month that the law's Medicaid work requirements, expiration of the Affordable Care Act's enhanced premium tax credits, and termination of reforms that benefit low-income Medicare beneficiaries will increase the number of uninsured Americans by 14.2 million over the next decade.
"Families, communities, and health systems nationwide will feel the consequences of these cuts."
The center-left think tank also expanded on a subsequent KFF report that showed how the 14.2 million figure would be spread out across states, finding that the uninsured rate would rise by at least 3% in 34 states and Washington, DC.
CAP's district-by-district analysis found that congressional districts will have an average of 33,000 more people who are uninsured by 2034 due to the OBBBA's healthcare provisions. Those with more than 30% of their under-65 population enrolled in Medicaid are projected to see particularly large increases in the number of uninsured constituents, with Democratic Rep. Yassamin Ansari's district in Arizona expected to have about 80,000 more uninsured residents by 2034—the most of any district in the country.
Ansari launched an "Accountability Summer" town hall tour in her state in July, holding events in Republican-led districts where she spoke with Arizonans about how their "Republican representatives have failed" them by supporting the OBBBA, in some cases after having expressed concerns about the impact it would have on their constituents.
One district Ansari visited, represented by Rep. Eli Crane (R-Ariz.), is also among the districts expected to see a major increase in the number of uninsured residents, at 54,000.
Other Republicans are expected see people they represent lose their coverage in large numbers due to the law, including Reps. Daniel Newhouse (R-Wash.) and Hal Rogers (R-Ky.). About 66,000 of Newhouse's constituents are projected to lose coverage, along with 64,000 of people in Rogers' district.
Rep. Randy Fine (R-Fla.), who touted the OBBBA as a "generational win for working families," will see 54,000 of his constituents lose their insurance, according to CAP.
The think tank found that California, Florida, and Texas will have the highest increases in their uninsured population, with more than 1 million people in each state losing coverage.
The losses caused by the OBBBA are projected to reverse "more than a decade of progress in expanding coverage," said CAP.
"Every lawmaker will see thousands of constituents lose coverage under this law," added the group. "Families, communities, and health systems nationwide will feel the consequences of these cuts."
In addition to attempting to reframe the OBBBA to boost its popularity, some Republicans are attempting to backpedal on the provision ending ACA tax credits that have helped millions of Americans afford their health coverage, which is scheduled to go into effect at the end of the year.
Reps. Tom Kean Jr. (R-NJ), Rob Bresnahan (R-Penn.), and Juan Ciscomani (R-Ariz.) have proposed a bill to extend the credits for one year, hoping to delay until after the midterm elections the provision that could cause some monthly premiums to skyrocket by 75% and leave more than 4 million Americans without health coverage.
"Congressional Republicans voted to rip health coverage from millions of Americans. They don't get brownie points for attempting to kick the can down the road on their own harmful and unpopular agenda because it's convenient for them," said Leor Tal, campaign director for Unrig Our Economy.
"If Republicans in Congress were serious about protecting people's care," added Tal, "they would vote to make these vital healthcare tax credits permanent and they wouldn't have passed the largest cut to Medicaid in history to pay for tax breaks for billionaires."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular