Approximately 42 million Americans—about one in eight people—who participate in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program stand to go hungry after November 1, when benefits are scheduled to expire.
“Bottom line, the well has run dry,” reads a message explicitly blaming Democrats on the Department of Agriculture’s website.
A coalition of 23 attorneys general and three governors are fighting for the latter. They argue that the USDA not only has the funds to continue feeding Americans via SNAP through the month of November, it also has “both the authority and legal duty” to do so.
It’s not. Those messages are a blatant violation of a law known as the Hatch Act.
In theory, this is enforced by the office of special counsel, which is an independent federal agency. In practice, Trump fired the head of the OSC back in February, and appointed one of his cabinet officials to the role.
In theory, this was completely unlawful, as the OSC was setup by Congress post Watergate [0] specifically to be independent of the President. Indeed a lower court ruled as such; but was overturned on appeal. The problem is that the Supreme Court has recently embraced a view of near unlimited presidential power, including explicit rulings against the constitutionality of laws preventing the president from firing heads of independent agencies. [1].
The court also ruled that the president has near complete immunity to commit crimes (Trump v US 2024). That ruling gives the president literally complete immunity for “core” acts such as issuing pardons. So, he could pardon everyone involved.
In theory, the recourse here is impeachment. But there isn’t much stomach to impeach him again after his prior impeachments failed to remove him from office. Those impeachments being for: withholding military aid to Ukraine because they wouldn’t investigate the son of his political opponents; and directing a violent insurrection on January 6 to try and remain in power despite loosing the election.
[0] Where then president Nixon directed a break in of the headquarters of his political opponents.
[1] Although, I will note, the Court has made a point of clarifying that the Federal reserve is fine. Undoubtedly because they care about the amount of money they would loose in the economic carnage of that particular agency loosing independence.