Trump

Nov. 7 (UPI) — President Donald Trump on Friday wants the U.S. Justice Department to investigate the meatpacking industry for possible price fixing and collusion.

Trump posted about the situation on Truth Social while flying to South Florida for the weekend and after he met in the White House with three Republican senators from beef-producing states, who are opposed to importing beef from Argentina.

“I have asked the DOJ to immediately begin an investigation into the meatpacking companies, who are driving up the price of beef through illicit collusion, price fixing, and price manipulation,” Trump posted.

“We will always protect our American Ranchers, and they are being blamed for what is being done by a majority of foreign-owned meatpackers, who artificially inflate prices and jeopardize the security of our Nation’s food supply.

“Action must be taken immediately to protect consumers, combat Illegal monopolies, and ensure these corporations are not criminally profiting at the expense of the American people. I am asking the DOJ to act expeditiously.”

A short time later, he posted: “Cattle prices have dropped substantially, the price of boxed beef has gone up — therefore, you know that something is ‘fishy.’ We will get to the bottom of it very quickly. If there is criminality, those people responsible will pay a steep price!”

After the messages, Attorney General Pam Bondi posted on X: “Our investigation is underway! My Antitrust Division led by @AAGSlater has taken the lead in partnership with our friend @SecRollins at @USDA.”

Brooke Rollins is the agriculture secretary and Abigail “Gail” Slater leads the DOJ’s Antitrust Division.

The top four meatpackers control more than about 85% of the U.S. market — American companies Tyson and Cargill with JBS and National subsidiaries of Brazilian companies.

“This consolidation allows them to suppress prices paid to ranchers while keeping consumer prices high,” Farm Action said. “Importing more beef into this rigged system will not lower costs for families or restore fair markets for producers.

Three of the companies have been sued.

In October, Cargill and Tyson agreed to pay $87.5 million to settle a case alleging price fixing for beef while also denying any wrongdoing.

Earlier this year, JBS agreed to pay $83.5 million for its portion of a separate suit over alleged cattle price fixing.

Trump was taking aim on meatpacking instead of cattle raising, which has been affected by drought, smaller herds, labor shortages and lingering COVID-19 effects, Axios reported.

Trump has said overall grocery prices are going down but concedes beef costs are rising.

A CNN fact check pointed out in September that they were 1.4% higher than in January, when Trump returned to office, according to the Consumer Price Index.

There was a 0.6% increase in average grocery prices from July 2025 to August 2025, the biggest month-to-month jump in three years

Beef is up 13% in one year — the highest over most food items — according to the CPI.

Trump has attempted to increase the nation’s beef supply with increased imports.

The cattle industry and legislators, including Republicans, have opposed this move.

“President Trump’s plan to buy beef from Argentina is a betrayal of the American rancher,” Farm Action said.

“Those of us who raise cattle have finally started to see what profit looks like after facing years of high input costs and market manipulation by the meatpacking monopoly.

“After crashing the soybean market and gifting Argentina our largest export buyer, he’s now poised to do the same to the cattle market. Importing Argentinian beef would send U.S. cattle prices plummeting -and with the meatpacking industry as consolidated as it is, consumers may not see lower beef prices either. Washington should be focused on fixing our broken cattle market, not rewarding foreign competitors.”

Senate Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota, opposes the imports.

“This isn’t the way to do it,” Thune told Semafor in October. “It’s created a lot of uncertainty in that market. So I’m hoping that the White House has gotten the message.”

Trump met with some Republican senators from beef-producing states: Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith of Mississippi, Tim Sheehy of Montana and Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma.

Hyde-Smith is a Republican from Mississippi whose family raises cattle. She is opposed to the imports.

In October, he announced plans to quadruple the tariff quota for imported Argentine beef from 20,000 to 80,000 metric tons. Any imports above this new quota with no tariff would still be subject to a higher 26.4% tariff.

In October, Trump authorized $20 billion loan to Argentina’s government and another $20 billion in financing from private lenders and sovereign wealth funds. It has been described as a bailout to Argentine President Javier Milei.

A US judge will not allow President Donald Trump to deploy National Guard members to the city of Portland, Oregon.

The ruling is the latest in a weeks-long court battle over whether the president violated federal law when he sent troops to a US city despite objections from local officials.

Troops had been blocked from deploying to the city due a temporary court order. Now, that order is permanent.

The Portland deployment is part of a series of efforts by Trump administration to subdue protests against federal immigration raids in primarily Democrat-led cities, including Chicago, Los Angeles and Washington DC.

The decision by US District Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee, is the first time the Trump administration was permanently blocked from deploying troops to a city.

The administration is widely expected to appeal the decision, though, and the issue could end up before the Supreme Court.

When she ruled against the Trump administration earlier this month, Judge Immergut issued two temporary restraining orders. One blocked Trump from mobilising the Oregon National Guard to Portland, while another, broader order stopped him from sending in any troops from any state to Oregon. Trump had tried to send forces from California and Texas.

In the 106-page ruling, Judge Immergut said that she was not blocking the president from ever using National Guard troops, but said that in Portland “the President did not have a lawful basis to federalize the National Guard”.

She wrote that there was neither a rebellion or danger of a rebellion where the president needed to deploy troops.

She also said Trump had violated the 10th amendment of the US Constitution, which gives states any powers not explicitly granted to the federal government.

The judge added that she would leave it to a higher court to set a standard for when a president can “deploy the military in the streets of American cities”, but that “wherever this line precisely is, defendants have failed to clear it. “

In Oregon, there have been competing narratives between state and local officials and the Trump administration on what exactly is happening on the ground.

The Department of Justice has described the city as “war-ravaged” and said there has been a violent siege at a Portland immigration detention facility.

“As we have always maintained, President Trump is exercising his lawful authority to protect federal assets and personnel following violent riots that local leaders have refused to address,” the White House previously said.

But local officials and many city residents have said the violence is not widespread and is contained by Portland police.

“This case is about whether we are a nation of constitutional law or martial law,” Portland’s attorney Caroline Turco said.

US district judge blocks Donald Trump’s use of military force to tackle protests against immigration officers.

United States President Donald Trump unlawfully ordered National Guard troops to Portland, Oregon, a federal judge has ruled, marking a legal setback for the president’s use of the military for policing duties in US cities.

The ruling on Friday by US District Judge Karin Immergut is the first to permanently block Trump’s use of military forces to quell protests against immigration authorities.

Immergut, a Trump appointee, rejected the administration’s claim that protesters at an immigration detention facility were waging a rebellion that legally justified sending troops to Portland.

Democrats have said Trump is abusing military powers meant for genuine emergencies such as an invasion or an armed rebellion.

Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield described the ruling as a “huge victory” and the “decision confirms that the President cannot send the Guard into Oregon without a legal basis for doing so”.

“The courts are holding this administration accountable to the truth and the rule of law,” Rayfield said in a post on social media.

BREAKING NEWS: We just secured a final court order blocking National Guard deployment!

Today’s ruling is a huge victory for Oregon. The courts are holding this administration accountable to the truth and the rule of law. pic.twitter.com/ffzgj0zCjM

— Attorney General Dan Rayfield (@AGDanRayfield) November 8, 2025

Portland’s Mayor Keith Wilson also applauded the decision, saying it “vindicates Portland’s position while reaffirming the rule of law that protects our community”.

“As I have said from the beginning, the number of federal troops needed in our city is zero,” Wilson said, according to local media reports.

The City of Portland and the Oregon Attorney General’s Office sued in September, alleging that the Trump administration was exaggerating occasional violence to justify sending in troops under a law permitting presidents to do so in cases of rebellion.

Echoing Trump’s description of Portland as “war-ravaged”, lawyers from the Department of Justice had described a violent siege overwhelming federal agents in the city.

But lawyers for Oregon and Portland said violence has been rare, isolated and contained by local police.

“This case is about whether we are a nation of constitutional law or martial law,” Portland’s lawyer Caroline Turco had said.

The Trump administration is likely to appeal Friday’s ruling, and the case could ultimately reach the US Supreme Court.

A review by the Reuters news agency of court records found that at least 32 people were charged with federal crimes stemming from the Portland protests since they began in June. Of the 32 charged, 11 pleaded guilty to misdemeanours, and those who have been sentenced received probation.

About half the defendants were charged with assaulting federal officers, including 14 felonies and seven misdemeanours.

Prosecutors dismissed two cases.

Charging documents describe protesters kicking and shoving officers, usually while resisting arrest.

Three judges, including Immergut, have now issued preliminary rulings that Trump’s National Guard deployments are not allowed under the emergency legal authority cited by his administration.

Nov. 7 (UPI) — The Trump administration on Friday night appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court after a federal appeals court upheld a district judge’s order to pay full benefits in November to 42 million in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

A short time earlier, the 1st District Circuit left in place a decision on Thursday by Rhode Island federal Judge Jack McConnell, who ordered the administration to pay out the full benefits within one day, saying, “People have gone without for too long.”

The three-member appeals court’s decision means the U.S. Department of Agriculture must take steps to disperse the electronic payments, which are staggered each month. Earlier Friday, the agency said it notified states that it is working to process the payments.

The panel was Chief Appellate Judge David Barron, appointed by President Barack Obama, and Gustavo Atavo Gelpi Jr. and Julie Rikelman, both picked by President Joe Biden.

The judges said that they are still considering a bid for longer relief while assessing the appeal.

Attorney General Pam Bondi posted on X the Trump administration will ask the Supreme Court to stay the Rhode Island-based lower court judge’s ruling, which she called “judicial activism at its worst.”

“A single district court in Rhode Island should not be able to seize center stage in the shutdown, seek to upend political negotiations that could produce swift political solutions for SNAP and other programs, and dictate its own preferences for how scarce federal funds should be spent,” Bondi said.

Seven days ago, McDonnell and U.S. District Court of Massachusetts Judge Indira Talwani told the Trump administration to access available funds to continue. They were both nominated by Obama.

On Monday, the administration told the judge it only had reserved money to pay out 50% of the total $9 billion cost. Then, it was raised to 65%.

The judge directed USDA to find $4 billion “in the metaphorical couch cushions.”

McConnell said the administration could use Section 32 funds, which the USDA uses to help with child nutrition programs. But the administration rejected that plan.

In the appeal, DOJ claimed that the judge’s order “makes a mockery of the separation of powers.” Lawyers said transferring funds would mean diverting money from Child Nutrition Programs.

“Unfortunately, by injecting itself with its erroneous short-term solution, the district court has scrambled ongoing political negotiations, extending the shutdown and thus undercutting its own objective of ensuring adequate funding for SNAP and all other crucial safety-net programs,” they said.

Plaintiffs in the case, which are nonprofit organizations, asked for the full payment, and McConnell agreed.

“The evidence shows that people will go hungry, food pantries will be overburdened, and needless suffering will occur” if SNAP is not fully funded, he said.

“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 a written order.

The federal government has been shut down since Oct. 1, and the shutdown is now the longest in history.

In every past shutdown, emergency funds have been used to fund the program.

McConnell also mentioned a social media post that Trump made, saying he refused to release any more funds until “the radical-left Democrats open up government, which they can easily do, and not before.”

The post was used as evidence that the administration would ignore McConnell’s order.

The Trump administration spent Friday fighting to avoid restoring $4 billion in food assistance in jeopardy due to the government shutdown, suggesting it might need to “raid school-lunch money” in order to comply with court orders.

The claim was part of a break-neck appeal in the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday, where the government hoped to duck a court order that would force it to pay out for food stamps — formally called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP — through November.

“There is no lawful basis for an order that directs USDA to somehow find $4 billion in the metaphorical couch cushions,” Assistant Atty. Gen. Brett A. Shumate wrote in the appeal.

The administration’s only option would be to “to starve Peter to feed Paul” by cutting school lunch programs, Shumate wrote.

On Friday afternoon, the appellate court declined to immediately block the lower court’s order, and said it would quickly rule on the merits of the funding decree.

SNAP benefits are a key fight in the ongoing government shutdown. California is one of several states suing the administration to restore the safety net program while negotiations continue to end the stalemate.

Millions of Americans have struggled to afford groceries since benefits lapsed Nov. 1, inspiring many Republican lawmakers to join Democrats in demanding an emergency stopgap.

The Trump administration was previously ordered to release contingency funding for the program that it said would cover benefits for about half of November.

But the process has been “confusing and chaotic” and “rife with errors,” according to a brief filed by 25 states and the District of Columbia.

Some states, including California, have started disbursing SNAP benefits for the month. Others say the partial funding is a functional lockout.

“Many states’ existing systems require complete reprogramming to accomplish this task, and given the sudden — and suddenly changing — nature of USDA’s guidance, that task is impossible to complete quickly,” the brief said.

“Recalculations required by [the government’s] plan will delay November benefits for [state] residents for weeks or months.”

On Thursday, U.S. District Judge John McConnell Jr. of Rhode Island ordered the full food stamp payout by the end of the week. He accused the administration of withholding the benefit for political gain.

“Faced with a choice between advancing relief and entrenching delay, [the administration] chose the latter — an outcome that predictably magnifies harm and undermines the very purpose of the program it administers,” he wrote.

“This Court is not naïve to the administration’s true motivations,” McConnell wrote. “Far from being concerned with Child Nutrition funding, these statements make clear that the administration is withholding full SNAP benefits for political purposes.”

The appeal could extend that deadline by as little as a few hours, or nullify it entirely.

But the latter may be unlikely, especially following the appellate court’s decision late Friday. The 1st Circuit is currently the country’s most liberal, with five active judges, all of whom were named to the bench by Democratic presidents.

While the court deliberates, both sides are left sparring over how many children will go hungry if the other prevails.

More than 16 million children rely on SNAP benefits. Close to 30 million are fed through the National School Lunch Program, which the government now says it must gut to meet the court’s order.

But the same pool of cash has already been tapped to extend Women, Infants and Children, which is a federal program that pays for baby formula and other basics for some poor families.

“This clearly undermines the Defendants’ point, as WIC is an entirely separate program from the Child Nutrition Programs,” McConnell wrote.

In its Friday order, the 1st Circuit panel said it would issue a full ruling “as quickly as possible.”

WASHINGTON — President Trump on Friday accused foreign-owned meat-packers of driving up the price of beef in the U.S. and asked the Department of Justice to open an investigation.

The Republican president announced the move on social media days after his party suffered losses in key elections in which the winning Democratic candidates focused relentlessly on the public’s concerns about the cost of living.

“I have asked the DOJ to immediately begin an investigation into the Meat Packing Companies who are driving up the price of Beef through Illicit Collusion, Price Fixing, and Price Manipulation,” Trump wrote in the social media post.

“We will always protect our American Ranchers, and they are being blamed for what is being done by Majority Foreign Owned Meat Packers, who artificially inflate prices, and jeopardize the security of our Nation’s food supply,” he continued.

Trump offered no proof to support his allegations.

Beef prices have soared to record levels in part after drought and years of low prices led to the smallest U.S. herd size in decades. Trump’s tariffs on Brazil, a major beef exporter, have also curbed imports.

Concentration in the meat-packing business has long been a concern for farmers and politicians on both sides of the aisle. There are four major meat-packing companies in the United States, and the largest beef company, JBS, is headquartered in Brazil. JBS USA did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Friday.

“Action must be taken immediately to protect Consumers, combat Illegal Monopolies, and ensure these Corporations are not criminally profiting at the expense of the American People,” Trump said.

Last month, Trump suggested the U.S. would buy Argentine beef to bring down stubbornly high prices for American consumers, angering U.S. cattle ranchers.

Trump’s accusations have renewed a bipartisan presidential fight against rising food prices.

Then-President Biden talked with independent farmers and ranchers about initiatives to reduce food prices by increasing competition within the meat industry. And then-Vice President Kamala Harris, whom Trump defeated last year, used her campaign to vow to crack down on food producers and major supermarkets “ price gouging.”

Superville and Karnowski write for the Associated Press. Karnowski reported from Minneapolis.

United States Senate Majority Leader John Thune has promptly swatted down a Democratic offer to reopen the US government and extend expiring healthcare subsidies for a year, calling it a “nonstarter” as the partisan impasse over the shutdown continued into its 38th day.

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer made the offer to reopen the government on Friday as Republicans have refused to negotiate on their demands to extend healthcare subsidies. It was a much narrower version of a broad proposal Democrats laid out a month ago to make the health tax credits permanent and reverse Medicaid cuts that Republicans enacted earlier this year.

Schumer offered Republicans simultaneous votes to end the government shutdown and extend the expiring healthcare subsidies, along with a bipartisan committee to address Republican demands for changes to the Affordable Care Act.

“All Republicans have to do is say yes,” Schumer said.

But Republicans quickly said no, and Thune reiterated that they would not trade offers on healthcare until the government is reopened. “That’s what we’re going to negotiate once the government opens up,” Thune said after Schumer made his proposal on the floor.

Thune said he thinks the offer is an indication that Democrats are “feeling the heat”.

“I guess you could characterise that as progress,” he said. “But I just don’t think it gets anywhere close to what we need to do here.”

It was unclear what might happen next. Thune has suggested a weekend Senate session was possible. US President Donald Trump called on the Senate to stay in town “until they have a Deal to end the Democrat Shutdown”.

Despite the impasse, lawmakers in both parties were feeling increased urgency to alleviate the growing crisis at airports, pay government workers and restore delayed food aid to millions of people. Thune pleaded with Democrats as he opened the Senate on Friday to “end these weeks of misery”.

Moderates continue to negotiate

As leaders of the two parties disagreed, a small group of Democrats led by New Hampshire Senator Jeanne Shaheen continued to negotiate among themselves and with rank-and-file Republicans on a deal that would end the shutdown.

The group has been discussing for weeks a vote for a group of bills that would pay for parts of government – food aid, veterans programmes and the legislative branch, among other things – and extend funding for everything else until December or January. The three annual spending bills that would likely be included are the product of bipartisan negotiations that have continued through the shutdown.

But the contours of that agreement would only come with the promise of a future healthcare vote, rather than a guarantee that Affordable Care Act subsidies are extended by the end of the year. Many Democrats have said that this is unacceptable.

Still, Republican leaders only need five additional votes to fund the government, and the group involved in the talks has ranged from 10 to 12 Democratic senators.

Republicans eye new package of bills

Trump urged Republicans at a White House breakfast on Wednesday to end the shutdown quickly and scrap the legislative filibuster, which requires 60 Senate votes for most legislation, so that they bypass Democrats altogether and fund the government.

“I am totally in favour of terminating the filibuster, and we would be back to work within 10 minutes after that vote took place,” Trump said on Friday.

Republicans have emphatically rejected Trump’s call, and Thune has instead been eyeing a bipartisan package that mirrors the proposal the moderate Democrats have been sketching out. But it is unclear what Thune, who has refused to negotiate, would promise on healthcare.

The package would replace the House-passed legislation that the Democrats have now rejected 14 times. That bill would only extend government funding until November 21, a date that is rapidly approaching after six weeks of inaction.

A choice for Democrats

A test vote on new legislation could come in the next few days if Thune decides to move forward.

Then Democrats would have a crucial choice to make: Do they keep fighting for a meaningful deal on extending the subsidies that expire in January, while prolonging the pain of the shutdown? Or do they vote to reopen the government and hope for the best as Republicans promise an eventual healthcare vote, but not a guaranteed outcome?

After a caucus meeting on Thursday, most Democrats suggested they would continue to hold out for Trump and Republican leaders to agree to negotiations.

“That’s what leaders do,” said Senator Ben Ray Lujan, Democrat from New Mexico. “You have the gavel, you have the majority, you have to bring people together.”

Hawaii Democrat Senator Brian Schatz said Democrats are “obviously not unanimous”, but “without something on healthcare, the vote is very unlikely to succeed”.

Johnson delivers setback to bipartisan talks

Democrats are facing pressure from unions eager for the shutdown to end and from allied groups that want them to hold firm. Many Democrats have argued that the wins for Democrats on Election Day show voters want them to continue the fight until Republicans yield and agree to extend the health tax credits.

A vote on the healthcare subsidies “has got to mean something”, said Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, an independent who caucuses with the Democrats. “That means a commitment by the speaker of the House, that he will support the legislation, that the president will sign.”

But Speaker Mike Johnson, a Republican from Louisiana, made clear he will not make any commitments. “I’m not promising anybody anything,” Johnson said on Thursday when asked if he could promise a vote on a healthcare bill.

BOSTON — President Trump ’s administration asked a federal appeals court Friday to block a judge’s order that it distribute November’s full monthly SNAP food benefits amid a U.S. government shutdown, even as at least some states said they were moving quickly to get the money to people.

The judge gave the Trump administration until Friday to make the payments through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. But the administration asked the appeals court to suspend any court orders requiring it to spend more money than is available in a contingency fund, and instead allow it to continue with planned partial SNAP payments for the month.

The court filing came even as Wisconsin said Friday that some SNAP recipients in the state already got their full November payments overnight on Thursday.

“We’ve received confirmation that payments went through, including members reporting they can now see their balances,” said Britt Cudaback, a spokesperson for Democratic Gov. Tony Evers.

Uncertainty remains for many SNAP recipients

The court wrangling prolonged weeks of uncertainty for the food program that serves about 1 in 8 Americans, mostly with lower incomes.

An individual can receive a monthly maximum food benefit of nearly $300 and a family of four up to nearly $1,000, although many receive less than that under a formula that takes into consideration their income. For many SNAP participants, it remains unclear exactly how much they will receive this month, and when they will receive it.

Jasmen Youngbey of Newark, N.J., waited in line Friday at a food pantry in the state’s largest city. As a single mom attending college, Youngbey said she relies on SNAP to help feed her 7-month-old and 4-year-old sons. But she said her account balance was at $0.

“Not everybody has cash to pull out and say, ‘OK, I’m going to go and get this,’ especially with the cost of food right now,” she said.

Tihinna Franklin, a school bus guard who was waiting in the same line outside the United Community Corp. food pantry, said her SNAP account balance was at 9 cents and she was down to three items in her freezer. She typically relies on the roughly $290 a month in SNAP benefits to help feed her grandchildren.

“If I don’t get it, I won’t be eating,” she said. “My money I get paid for, that goes to the bills, rent, electricity, personal items. That is not fair to us as mothers and caregivers.”

The legal battle over SNAP takes another twist

Because of the federal government shutdown, the Trump administration originally had said SNAP benefits would not be available in November. However, two judges ruled last week that the administration could not skip November’s benefits entirely because of the shutdown. One of those judges was U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell Jr., who ordered the full payments Thursday.

In both cases, the judges ordered the government to use one emergency reserve fund containing more than $4.6 billion to pay for SNAP for November but gave it leeway to tap other money to make the full payments, which cost between $8.5 billion and $9 billion each month.

On Monday, the administration said it would not use additional money, saying it was up to Congress to appropriate the funds for the program and that the other money was needed to shore up other child hunger programs.

Thursday’s federal court order rejected the Trump administration’s decision to cover only 65% of the maximum monthly benefit, a decision that could have left some recipients getting nothing for this month.

In its court filing Friday, Trump’s administration contended that Thursday’s directive to fund full SNAP benefits runs afoul of the U.S. Constitution.

“This unprecedented injunction makes a mockery of the separation of powers. Courts hold neither the power to appropriate nor the power to spend,” the U.S. Department of Justice wrote in its request to the court.

In response, attorneys for the cities and nonprofits challenging Trump’s administration said the government has plenty of available money and the court should “not allow them to further delay getting vital food assistance to individuals and families who need it now.”

States are taking different approaches to food aid

Some states said they stood ready to distribute SNAP money as quickly as possible.

The Michigan Department of Health and Human Services said it directed a vendor servicing its SNAP electronic benefit cards to issue full SNAP benefits soon after the federal funding is received.

Benefits are provided to individuals on different days of the month. Those who normally receive benefits on the third, fifth or seventh of the month should receive their full SNAP allotment within 48 hours of funds becoming available, the Michigan agency said, and others should receive their full benefits on their regularly scheduled dates.

Meanwhile, North Carolina’s Department of Health and Human Services said that partial SNAP benefits were distributed Friday, based on the Trump administration’s previous decision. Officials in Illinois and North Dakota also said they were distributing partial November payments, starting as soon as Friday for some recipients.

In Missouri, where officials had been working on partial distribution, the latest court jostling raised new questions. A spokesperson for the state Department of Social Services said Friday that it is awaiting further guidance about how to proceed from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which administers SNAP.

Amid the federal uncertainty, Delaware’s Democratic Gov. Matt Meyer said the state used its own funds Friday to provide the first of could be a weekly relief payment to SNAP recipients.

On Thursday, Nebraska’s Republican Gov. Jim Pillen downplayed the effect of paused SNAP benefits on families in his state, saying, “Nobody’s going to go hungry.” The multimillionaire said food pantries, churches and other charitable services would fill the gap.

Lieb, Casey and Bauer write for the Associated Press. Lieb reported from Jefferson City, Mo., and Bauer from Madison, Wisc. AP writers Margery Beck in Omaha; Mike Catalini in Newark, N.J.; Jack Dura in Bismarck, N.D.; Mingson Lau in Claymont, Del.; John O’Connor, in Springfield, Ill.; and Gary D. Robertson in Raleigh, N.C., contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — President Trump said on Friday he’s considering granting Hungary an exemption from U.S. sanctions on Russian energy as he sat down with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán at the White House. “We’re looking at it because its very difficult for him to get the oil and gas from other areas,” Trump said.

Orbán said it’s a “vital” issue for his landlocked country, and said he planned to discuss with Trump the “consequences for the Hungarian people” if the sanctions took effect.

In comments on Friday, Orbán said he would present Trump with several “suggestions” for implementing an exemption.

“I’m not asking for some kind of gift from the Americans or some kind of unusual thing. I am simply asking for the realization that the sanctions recently imposed on Russian energy puts certain countries like Hungary, which do not have access to the sea, in an impossible situation,” Orbán said on state radio. “I’m going to ask the president to acknowledge that.”

A large delegation of cabinet members, business leaders and numerous right-wing political influencers with close connections to Hungary’s government accompanied Orbán to Washington. The delegation rented a 220-passenger commercial jet from Hungarian carrier Wizz Air for the journey.

Prior to Orbán’s arrival on Thursday, a bipartisan group of U.S. senators introduced a resolution calling on Hungary to end its dependence on Russian energy.

The resolution was co-signed by 10 senators including Republicans Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Chuck Grassley of Iowa, as well as Democrats Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire and Chris Coons of Delaware. It “expresses concern that Hungary has shown no sign of reducing its dependence on Russian fossil fuels,” and urges Budapest to adhere to a European Union plan to cease all Russian energy imports into the bloc by the end of 2027.

“Europe has made extraordinary progress cutting its energy ties with Moscow, but Hungary’s actions continue to undermine collective security and embolden the Kremlin,” Shaheen wrote in a statement. The resolution, she continued, “sends a clear message that when it comes to buying Russian energy, all allies should be held to the same standard, and that includes Hungary.”

On Friday, Hungarian Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó said in Washington that he will sign a bilateral nuclear energy cooperation agreement with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, according to Hungarian state news agency MTI.

The deal will involve Hungary’s first-ever purchases of American nuclear fuel, which it currently buys from Russia, and introduce U.S. technology for the on-site storage of spent fuel at Hungary’s Paks nuclear plant. The agreement will also include cooperation on small modular reactors.

After arriving in Washington, Orbán and some of his top officials met with Eduardo Bolsonaro, the son of former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, who in September was sentenced to 27 years in prison for plotting a coup after an election loss. Orbán posted on social media: “We stand firmly with the Bolsonaros in these challenging times — friends and allies who never give up. Keep fighting: political witch-hunts have no place in democracy, truth and justice must prevail!”

Megerian and Spike write for the Associated Press. Spike reported from Budapest

WASHINGTON — Cornell University has agreed to pay $60 million and accept the Trump administration’s interpretation of civil rights laws in order to restore federal funding and end investigations into the Ivy League school.

Cornell President Michael Kotlikoff announced the agreement on Friday, saying it upholds the university’s academic freedom while restoring more than $250 million in research funding that the government withheld amid investigations into alleged civil rights violations.

The university agreed to pay $30 million directly to the U.S. government along with another $30 million toward research that will support U.S. farmers.

Kotlikoff said the agreement revives the campus’ partnership with the federal government “while affirming the university’s commitment to the principles of academic freedom, independence, and institutional autonomy that, from our founding, have been integral to our excellence.”

The six-page agreement is similar to one signed by the University of Virginia last month. It’s shorter and less prescriptive than others signed by Columbia University and Brown University.

It requires Cornell to comply with the government’s interpretation of civil rights laws on issues involving antisemitism, racial discrimination and transgender issues. A Justice Department memo that orders colleges to abandon diversity, equity and inclusion programs and transgender-friendly policies will be used as a training resource for faculty and staff at Cornell.

The campus must also provide a wealth of admissions data that the government has separately sought from campuses to ensure race is no longer being considered as a factor in admissions decisions. President Trump has suggested some campuses are ignoring a 2023 Supreme Court decision ending affirmative action in admissions.

Education Secretary Linda McMahon called it a “transformative commitment” that puts a focus on “merit, rigor, and truth-seeking.”

“These reforms are a huge win in the fight to restore excellence to American higher education and make our schools the greatest in the world,” McMahon said on X.

Cornell’s president must personally certify compliance with the agreement each quarter. The deal is effective through the end of 2028.

It appears to split the difference on a contentious issue colleges have grappled with as they negotiate an exit from federal scrutiny: payments made directly to the government. Columbia agreed to pay $200 million directly to the government, while Brown University reached an agreement to pay $50 million to state workforce organizations. Virginia’s deal included no payment at all.

Binkley writes for the Associated Press.

The uproar over Tucker Carlson’s interview with white nationalist and Holocaust denier Nick Fuentes has sparked yet another round of MAGA civil war talk.

Full disclosure: I previously worked for Carlson at the Daily Caller, so I’ve had a front-row seat for this ongoing battle for a long time now.

In case you missed the latest: Carlson invited Fuentes onto his podcast. What followed wasn’t an interview so much as a warm bubble bath of mutual validation — the kind of “conversation” that helps launder extremist ideas.

Enter Kevin Roberts, president of the Heritage Foundation — once the intellectual vanguard of conservatism, now something closer to an emotional support group for people who think President Reagan was too soft. Responding to whispers that Heritage might distance itself from Carlson, Roberts rushed out a video to reassure the faithful: Heritage will have no enemies to its right.

Roberts disagreed with Fuentes (good for him) but insisted Heritage didn’t become the top conservative think tank by “canceling our own people or policing the consciences of Christians.” He also called Carlson’s critics a “venomous coalition” who “serve someone else’s agenda” — which echoes one of the oldest antisemitic tropes in the book.

And then something surprising happened: People inside Heritage actually pushed back (a brave move, given Heritage’s Orwellian “one voice” policy). Some even resigned.

The broader right-wing commentariat weighed in, too. Ben Shapiro called Carlson an “intellectual coward.” Ted Cruz made some noise. The Wall Street Journal editorial board huffed. And talk radio host Mark Levin criticized Fuentes and Carlson during a speech to the Republican Jewish Coalition. For a brief moment, it looked like accountability was actually trending.

But … why this moment? Why now?

Keep in mind: Then-former President Trump dined with Fuentes in 2022 and wrongly claimed immigrants were eating pets in 2024. As president, he told the Proud Boys to “stand back and stand by” in 2020. And of course he launched his political career by questioning President Obama’s birth certificate. I could go on.

Despite all of this, Trump’s grip on the conservative movement only grew firmer.

Meanwhile, right-wing antisemitism has metastasized on Trump’s watch — despite his support for Israel.

Charlottesville, anyone?

The “alt-right” has shed its “alt.” They’re just “right” now.

This is especially observable when it comes to young conservatives who came of age during the Trump era. Indeed, one Heritage staffer told the New York Post that “a growing number” of Heritage interns “actually agree” with Fuentes.

And here’s the irony: The same conservative media figures now sounding the alarm helped build the machine.

Take Levin. Fuentes recently admitted that it was Levin’s radio show that first radicalized him. “He planted the seed, at least,” Fuentes told Carlson.

Likewise, aside from endorsing Trump in 2024, Shapiro made conspiracy theorist Candace Owens famous when his Daily Wire hired her to host a podcast on its platform after she became buddies with Kanye West and after she suggested the only problem with Adolf Hitler was that “he had dreams outside of Germany.”

So if these more mainstream Trumpers are horrified now, it’s probably because they helped create monsters — and those monsters are now coming to devour their creators, as monsters always do.

Rest assured, though, this rot is not limited solely to antisemitism. In recent months, MAGA figures such as Vivek Ramaswamy, FBI Director Kash Patel and even Vice President JD Vance (who is married to an Indian American woman) have all been targets of racist abuse online.

It’s important to note that none of these folks are considered “Never Trump” or Reagan conservatives. They are Trump allies. The revolution devours itself. (First they came for the Never Trumpers.…)

Again, this is far from the first skirmish in the MAGA civil war. But all of these internecine fights obscure the root cause of the problem: Trump. And yet, the orange emperor himself? Off-limits.

The fever won’t break while Trump’s still around, serving as a magnet for the worst people and cultivating the toxic ecosystem that made all of this right-wing racism possible, if not inevitable.

So by all means, conservatives: Condemn Carlson, denounce Fuentes and scold Heritage for failing to police the right and only punching left.

But as long as you avert your eyes from Trumpism, your righteous outrage is just theater — the political equivalent of aggressively mopping the floor while the pipes keep bursting.

Matt K. Lewis is the author of “Filthy Rich Politicians” and “Too Dumb to Fail.”

“It’s an historic moment for the Congress. It’s an historic moment for the women of America. It is a moment for which we have waited over 200 years,” said United States Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi in January 2007, upon becoming the speaker of the US House of Representatives.

“For our daughters and our granddaughters, today we have broken the marble ceiling,” she added, addressing an applauding audience at the House in Washington, DC.

Pelosi, 85, who has served as the Democratic representative for California’s 11th Congressional District since 1987, made history when she was elected as the 52nd speaker of the House of Representatives – as the first-ever woman – and served from 2007 to 2011. She later served again from 2019 to 2023.

On Thursday this week, she announced her retirement from Congress as of January next year.

Paying tribute to her home city of San Francisco, she announced her decision in a video message, telling and citizens of the city: “It was the faith that you had placed in me and the latitude that you have given me that enabled me to shatter the marble ceiling and be the first woman speaker of the House, whose voice would certainly be heard.

“I want you, my fellow San Franciscans, to be the first to know I will not be seeking re-election to Congress,” Pelosi, 85, added.

“With a grateful heart, I look forward to my final year of service as your proud representative.”

Seen as one of the most powerful figures in the modern Democratic Party and one of the most powerful women in US politics, Pelosi was re-elected as speaker of the House in 2019 and served until 2023.

At the end of her second tenure, she stepped down from House leadership for the Democratic Party but retained the honorary title of speaker emerita of the House.

Here’s what we know:

Who is Nancy Pelosi?

Nancy Patricia Pelosi was born on March 26, 1940, in Baltimore, Maryland, and is the only daughter and youngest of six siblings.

She comes from a family with political lineage. Her father, Thomas D’Alesandro Jr, was a congressman who served as mayor of Baltimore for 12 years. Her older brother, Thomas D’Alesandro III, also served as mayor of Baltimore.

After graduating with a bachelor’s degree in political science from Trinity College in Washington, DC in the 1960s, Pelosi started an internship with the Maryland senator at the time, Daniel Brewster.

In 1963, she married Paul Pelosi, an American businessman and San Francisco native, and the couple moved to the city six years later, with their six children.

In the 1980s, Pelosi began working with the Democratic National Committee in the state of California. Starting as a fundraiser, she progressed to become the chair of both the California Democratic Party between 1981 and 1983 and the host committee for the 1984 Democratic National Convention in San Francisco.

How long has Pelosi been in Congress?

In 1987, Pelosi was elected to Congress as a Democratic representative – a seat she campaigned for, promising action against AIDS, which was badly affecting people, especially from the LGBTQ+ community, in her city of San Francisco.

A national law addressing the epidemic emerged in the 1990s in the form of the Ryan White Care Act, and Pelosi, who was in Congress at the time, celebrated the moment. That law provided the largest funding programme for people with AIDS.

As a congresswoman for nearly 40 years, Pelosi has climbed through the ranks and, in 2001, became the first woman to hold the post of the House minority whip for the Democratic Party. In this post, it was her duty to advance the policies of her party.

In 2002, she became the House minority leader and, in 2007, she was elected speaker of the House when Republican George W Bush was in power.

“In this House, we may be different parties, but we serve one country,” she told the House while accepting the post in January 2007.

What does the House Speaker do?

According to the US Congress website, the Speaker of the House is elected either at the start of a Congress, which lasts for two years, or if there is a vacancy due to death or resignation.

The election takes place by “roll call vote, during which Members state aloud the name of their preferred candidate. If no candidate receives a majority of votes cast, balloting continues.” A speaker remains in office as long as he or she holds the House’s majority vote.

The speaker of the House symbolises “the power and authority of the House” and is tasked with maintaining decorum in the House, allowing members to speak, overseeing debates, and undertaking non-legislative tasks like controlling the Hall of the House.

The Speaker is also responsible for “defending the majority party’s legislative agenda” and also has a role of serving as a member of the House.

But the speaker cannot debate or vote on topics discussed in the House or sit on any standing committee in the House. These committees handle specific issues like overseeing government departments or analysing various financial issues.

What policies has Pelosi championed?

As a congresswoman and speaker of the House twice during her tenure, Pelosi has pursued left-of-centre policies and has been instrumental in passing several important laws and policies.

Climate

When she first took the gavel in 2007 as speaker of the House, she focused on climate policies and set up the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, which held many hearings.

In 2015, she supported former US President Barack Obama in joining the Paris Climate Agreement.

In 2017, President Donald Trump ceased US participation, but when President Joe Biden came to power in 2021, climate was once again on the agenda.

As speaker of the House, Pelosi oversaw the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act in 2022, which also included policies to address climate change.

Women’s rights

As the first woman to hold the position of speaker of the House in the US, Pelosi has been seen as instrumental in advancing women’s rights.

When Obama came to power in 2008, with Pelosi as speaker, she ensured that the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which addressed equal wages for men and women, was passed.

She also supported women’s reproductive rights, despite being a Catholic, and fought for Roe v Wade – a US law which established that women had a constitutional right to an abortion – when it was overturned during President Donald Trump’s first term.

Healthcare

During President Obama’s tenure, Pelosi was instrumental in ensuring his Affordable Care Act became a law in 2010.

The law lists guidelines to ensure federal subsidies to ensure every person in the US has access to medical care and services.

The law was initially unpopular in the House, but Pelosi held hearings and spoke to Democrats and Republicans to ensure the smooth passage of the bill.

Between 2021 and 2023, Pelosi was also able to help Democrats pass major bills to propel Biden’s agenda, which included a huge COVID-19 relief package.

Foreign policy

As a Congress member in 2003, she opposed the US’s war in Iraq. She has also voiced strong opposition to Russia’s war in Ukraine.

However, when it comes to Israel’s war in Gaza, Pelosi is a staunch supporter of Israel and has defended the US stance towards the war.

In 2024, however, she called on Biden to halt the transfer of arms to Israel.

Pelosi has also been hawkish towards China and triggered a controversy when she visited Taiwan in 2022.

What is her role now?

She currently serves as the Representative for California’s 11th Congressional District, which includes San Francisco, from where she focuses on employment rights.

After her second tenure as Speaker of the House ended in November 2023, Pelosi announced she would step down from the House’s leadership to make way for young members to take up the role.

The end of her tenure made headlines, and interviews with her focusing on her diet – which involved having “her daily hot dog” – also caught the media’s attention. Pelosi has often told reporters that she enjoys a hot dog with mustard for lunch every day, plenty of Ghirardelli chocolates, and a breakfast that generally includes ice cream.

After stepping down as speaker, Pelosi retained the title of Speaker Emerita of the House.

She is also renowned as a brilliant fundraiser for political campaigns. “I had to raise like a million dollars a day – well, at least five days a week,” she once told reporters.

Why is she retiring now?

Pelosi has not given the precise reason for her decision to retire now. But, according to US media reports, it was widely expected after close to 38 years of service.

“I say to my colleagues in the House all of the time, no matter what title they had bestowed upon me – speaker, leader, whip – there has been no greater honour for me than to stand on the House floor and say, ‘I speak for the people of San Francisco,’” she said in her video message announcing her retirement on Thursday.

How did Trump react to news of her resignation?

President Trump, who has clashed with Pelosi on numerous occasions, called her an “evil woman” following the news.

“I think she did the country a great service by retiring. I think she was a tremendous liability for the country,” he told reporters.

Pelosi and Trump are often referred to as adversaries by political commentators and US media outlets, due to their disagreements over policy.

In 2019, during Trump’s first term, Pelosi, Democrat Chuck Schumer – who is currently minority leader of the Senate – and Trump got into a heated argument over building a wall along the US border with Mexico. Trump threatened to shut down the government during the squabble, which was broadcast on television channels around the world.

That same year, Trump and Pelosi discussed the war in Syria, but their disagreements were made public by Trump himself, who tweeted a picture of Pelosi pointing a finger at him.

“Nervous Nancy’s unhinged meltdown!” he said.

Nervous Nancy’s unhinged meltdown! pic.twitter.com/RDeUI7sfe7

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 16, 2019

In 2020, their rocky relationship once again made headlines when Pelosi tore up a copy of Trump’s State of the Union speech, calling it a “lie”. Trump said her actions were illegal since it was a government document, but, in fact, it was her own copy of the speech – not the official document.

Trump supporters who stormed into the Capitol on January 6, 2021, to protest the 2020 presidential election results that Biden won, barged into Pelosi’s office looking for her but couldn’t find her.

In 2022, an assailant broke into Pelosi’s home in San Francisco and assaulted her husband with a hammer, fracturing his skull. The former House speaker was not at the house during the attack. Prosecutors believe the act was politically motivated.

In January 2023, Trump mocked her husband’s attack while addressing a California Republican party convention as he prepared to stand for the presidential race for a second time.

“We’ll stand up to crazy Nancy Pelosi, who ruined San Francisco – how’s her husband doing, anybody know?” Trump said.

“And she’s against building a wall at our border, even though she has a wall around her house – which obviously didn’t do a very good job,” he added.

How have others reacted?

Many American politicians paid tribute to Pelosi on social media platforms this week.

Former Representative Democrat Gabby Giffords (Democrat-Arizona), who was shot in the head in 2011 by a gunman who also killed six others during a constituent event in Tucson in 2011, said in a press statement:  “As the first woman Speaker of the House, she inspired me and and at my bedside following the shooting that turned my life upside-down, she uplifted me.”

Former President Obama said on X: “For almost four decades, Nancy Pelosi has served the American people and worked to make our country better. No one was more skilled at bringing people together and getting legislation passed – and I will always be grateful for her support of the Affordable Care Act.”

Former President Biden called Pelosi “the best Speaker of the House in American history” and said it was the reason why he awarded her the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the US’s highest honour, in 2024.

“When I was President, we worked together to grow our economy, create millions of jobs, and make historic investments in our nation’s future. She has devoted much of her life to this country, and America will always be grateful,” he said on X.

Right-wing Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene also lauded Pelosi’s leadership. “She had an incredible career. I served under her speakership in my first term of Congress. And I’m very impressed at her ability to get things done. I wish we could get things done for our party,” she told CNN.

Which internet controversies has Pelosi been part of?

According to the Poynter Institute’s PolitiFact, while Pelosi has been lauded for her political achievements, she has also been mocked.

Some posts on the internet said she was removed from the House for being drunk many times. This is untrue.

A few other posts said she associated with Mexican drug lord El Chapo in 2016, when in reality she was at a meeting to discuss US-Mexico trade and security in the Pacific with Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto and Representative Henry Cuellar from Texas, who internet users mistakenly identified as El Chapo.

Foreigners seeking visas to live in the U.S. might be rejected if they have certain medical conditions, including diabetes or obesity, under a Thursday directive from the Trump administration.

The guidance, issued in a cable the State Department sent to embassy and consular officials and examined by KFF Health News, directs visa officers to deem applicants ineligible to enter the U.S. for several new reasons, including age or the likelihood they might rely on public benefits. The guidance says that such people could become a “public charge” — a potential drain on U.S. resources — because of their health issues or age.

While assessing the health of potential immigrants has been part of the visa application process for years, including screening for communicable diseases such as tuberculosis and obtaining vaccine history, experts said the new guidelines greatly expand the list of medical conditions to be considered and give visa officers more power to make decisions about immigration based on an applicant’s health status.

The directive is part of the Trump administration’s divisive and aggressive campaign to deport immigrants living without authorization in the U.S. and dissuade others from immigrating into the country. The White House’s crusade to push out immigrants has included daily mass arrests, bans on refugees from certain countries, and plans to severely restrict the total number permitted into the U.S.

The new guidelines mandate that immigrants’ health be a focus in the application process. The guidance applies to nearly all visa applicants but is likely to be used only in cases in which people seek to permanently reside in the U.S., said Charles Wheeler, a senior attorney for the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, a nonprofit legal aid group.

“You must consider an applicant’s health,” the cable reads. “Certain medical conditions — including, but not limited to, cardiovascular diseases, respiratory diseases, cancers, diabetes, metabolic diseases, neurological diseases, and mental health conditions — can require hundreds of thousands of dollars’ worth of care.”

About 10% of the world’s population have diabetes. Cardiovascular diseases are also common; they are the globe’s leading killer.

The cable also encourages visa officers to consider other conditions, such as obesity, which it notes can cause asthma, sleep apnea, and high blood pressure, in their assessment of whether an immigrant could become a public charge and therefore should be denied entry into the U.S.

“All of these can require expensive, long-term care,” the cable reads. Spokespeople for the State Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the cable.

Visa officers were also directed to determine whether applicants have the means to pay for medical treatment without help from the U.S. government.

“Does the applicant have adequate financial resources to cover the costs of such care over his entire expected lifespan without seeking public cash assistance or long-term institutionalization at government expense?” the cable reads.

The cable’s language appears at odds with the Foreign Affairs Manual, the State Department’s own handbook, which says that visa officers cannot reject an application based on “what if” scenarios, Wheeler said.

The guidance directs visa officers to develop “their own thoughts about what could lead to some sort of medical emergency or sort of medical costs in the future,” he said. “That’s troubling because they’re not medically trained, they have no experience in this area, and they shouldn’t be making projections based on their own personal knowledge or bias.”

The guidance also directs visa officers to consider the health of family members, including children or older parents.

“Do any of the dependents have disabilities, chronic medical conditions, or other special needs and require care such that the applicant cannot maintain employment?” the cable asks.

Immigrants already undergo a medical exam by a physician who’s been approved by a U.S. embassy.

They are screened for communicable diseases, such as tuberculosis, and asked to fill out a form that asks them to disclose any history of drug or alcohol use, mental health conditions, or violence. They’re also required to have a number of vaccinations to guard against infectious diseases such as measles, polio and hepatitis B.

But the new guidance goes further, emphasizing that chronic diseases should be considered, said Sophia Genovese, an immigration lawyer at Georgetown University. She also noted that the language of the directive encourages visa officers and the doctors who examine people seeking to immigrate to speculate on the cost of applicants’ medical care and their ability to get employment in the U.S. considering their medical history.

“Taking into consideration one’s diabetic history or heart health history — that’s quite expansive,” Genovese said. “There is a degree of this assessment already, just not quite expansive as opining over, ‘What if someone goes into diabetic shock?’ If this change is going to happen immediately, that’s obviously going to cause a myriad of issues when people are going into their consular interviews.”

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.

Polls find large majorities of people in the US oppose military action against Venezuela, where Trump has ramped up military pressure.

Republicans in the United States Senate have voted down legislation that would have required US President Donald Trump to obtain congressional approval for any military attacks on Venezuela.

Two Republicans had crossed the political aisle and joined Democrats to vote in favour of the legislation on Thursday, but their support was not enough to secure passage, and the bill failed to pass by 51 to 49 votes.

“We should not be going to war without a vote of Congress,” Democratic Senator Tim Kaine said during a speech.

The vote comes amid a US military build-up off South America and a series of military strikes targeting vessels in international waters off Venezuela and Colombia that have killed at least 65 people.

The US has alleged, without presenting evidence, that the boats it bombed were transporting drugs, but Latin American leaders, some members of Congress, international law experts and family members of the deceased have described the US attacks as extrajudicial killings, claiming most of those killed were fishermen.

Fears are now growing that Trump will use the military deployment in the region – which includes thousands of US troops, a nuclear submarine and a group of warships accompanying the USS Gerald R Ford, the US Navy’s most sophisticated aircraft carrier – to launch an attack on Venezuela in a bid to oust President Nicolas Maduro.

Washington has accused Maduro of drug trafficking, and Trump has hinted at carrying out attacks on Venezuelan soil.

Senator Adam Schiff, a California Democrat, referencing Trump’s military posturing towards Venezuela, said on Thursday: “It’s really an open secret that this is much more about potential regime change.”

“If that’s where the administration is headed, if that’s what we’re risking – involvement in a war – then Congress needs to be heard on this,” he said.

Earlier on Thursday, a pair of US B-52 bombers flew over the Caribbean Sea along the coast of Venezuela, flight tracking data showed.

Data from tracking website Flightradar24 showed the two bombers flying parallel to the Venezuelan coast, then circling northeast of Caracas before heading back along the coast and turning north and flying further out to sea.

The presence of the US bombers off Venezuela was at least the fourth time that US military aircraft have flown near the country’s borders since mid-October, with B-52s having done so on one previous occasion, and B-1B bombers on two other occasions.

Little public support in US for attack on Venezuela

A recent poll found that only 18 percent of people in the US support even limited use of military force to overthrow Maduro’s government.

Research by YouGov also found that 74 percent of people in the US believe that the president should not be able to carry out military strikes abroad without congressional approval, in line with the requirements of the US Constitution.

Republican lawmakers, however, have embraced the recent strikes on vessels in the Caribbean and Pacific, adopting the Trump administration’s framing of its efforts to cut off the flow of narcotics to the US.

Questions of the legality of such attacks, either under US or international law, do not appear to be of great concern to many Republicans.

“President Trump has taken decisive action to protect thousands of Americans from lethal narcotics,” Senator Jim Risch, the Republican chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in remarks declaring his support for the strikes.

While only two Republicans – Senators Rand Paul and Lisa Murkowski – defected to join Democrats in supporting the legislation to limit Trump’s ability to wage war unilaterally on Thursday, some conservatives have expressed frustration with a possible war on Venezuela.

Trump had campaigned for president on the promise of withdrawing the US from foreign military entanglements.

In recent years, Congress has made occasional efforts to reassert itself and impose restraints on foreign military engagements through the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which reaffirmed that Congress alone has the power to declare war.

WASHINGTON — Ahead of Tuesday’s election, when Americans weighed in at the ballot box for the first time since President Trump returned to office, a vicious fight emerged among the president’s most prominent supporters.

The head of the most influential conservative think tank in Washington found himself embroiled in controversy over his defense of Nick Fuentes, an avowed racist and antisemite, whose rising profile and embrace on the right has become a phenomenon few in politics can ignore.

Fierce acrimony between Fuentes’ critics and acolytes dominated social media for days as a historically protracted government shutdown risked food security for millions of Americans. Despite the optics, Trump hosted a Halloween ball at his Mar-a-Lago estate themed around the extravagance of the Great Gatsby era.

Marjorie Taylor Greene, a congresswoman who rose to national fame for her promotion of conspiracy theories, took to legacy media outlets to warn that Republicans are failing the American people over fundamental political imperatives, calling on leadership to address the nation’s cost-of-living crisis and come up with a comprehensive healthcare plan.

And on Tuesday, as vote tallies came in, moderate Democratic candidates in New Jersey and Virginia who had campaigned on economic bread-and-butter issues outperformed their polling — and Kamala Harris’ 2024 numbers against Trump in a majority of districts throughout their states.

The past year in politics has been dominated by a crisis within the Democratic Party over how to rebuild a winning coalition after Trump’s reelection. Now, just one year on, the Republican Party appears to be fracturing, as well, as it prepares for Trump’s departure from the national stage and the vacuum it will create in a party cast over 10 years in his image.

“Lame duck status is going to come even faster now,” Erick Erickson, a prominent conservative commentator, wrote on social media as election results trickled in. “Trump cannot turn out the vote unless he is on the ballot, and that is never happening again.”

A post-Trump debate intensifies

Flying to Seoul last week on a tour of Asia, Trump was asked to respond to remarks from top congressional Republicans, including the House speaker and Senate majority leader, over his potential pursuit of a third term in office, despite a clear constitutional prohibition against it.

“I guess I’m not allowed to run,” Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One. “If you read it, it’s pretty clear, I’m not allowed to run. It’s too bad.”

Less than a year remains until the 2026 midterm elections when Democrats could take back partial control of Congress, crippling Trump’s ability to enact his agenda and encumbering his administration with investigations.

But a countdown to the midterms also means that Trump has precious time left before the 2028 presidential election begins in earnest, eclipsing the final two years of his presidency.

It’s a conversation already brewing on the right.

“The Republican Party is just a husk,” Stephen K. Bannon, a prominent conservative commentator who served as White House chief strategist in Trump’s first term, told Politico in an interview Wednesday. Bannon has advocated for Trump to challenge the constitutional rule on presidential term limits.

“When Trump is engaged, when Trump’s on the ballot, when Trump’s team can get out there and get low-propensity voters — because that’s the difference now in modern politics — when they can do it, they win,” Bannon said. “When he doesn’t do it, they don’t.”

Trump has already suggested his vice president, JD Vance, and secretary of State, Marco Rubio, will be top contenders to succeed him. But an extreme faction of his political coalition, aligned with Fuentes, is already disparaging them as globalists working at the whims of a baseless conspiracy of American Jews. Fuentes targeted Vance last week, in particular, over his weight, his marriage to a “brown” Indian woman, and his support for Israel.

“The infighting is stupid,” Vance said on Wednesday in a post on the election results, tying intraparty battles to Tuesday’s poor showing for the GOP.

“I care about my fellow citizens — particularly young Americans — being able to afford a decent life, I care about immigration and our sovereignty, and I care about establishing peace overseas so our resources can be focused at home,” he said, adding: “If you care about those things too, let’s work together.”

Democratic fractures remain

Some in Republican leadership saw a silver lining in an otherwise difficult night on Tuesday.

The success of Zohran Mamdani, a 34-year-old democratic socialist who will serve as the youngest and first Muslim mayor of New York City, “is the reason I’m optimistic” for next year’s midterms, House Speaker Mike Johnson told RealClearPolitics on Wednesday.

New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani speaks at Tuesday night’s victory celebration.

(Yuki Iwamura / Associated Press)

“We will have a great example to point to in New York City,” Johnson said. “They’ve handed the keys to the kingdom to the Marxist. He will destroy it.”

Mamdani’s victory is a test for a weak and diffuse Democratic leadership still trying to steer the party in a unified direction, despite this week’s elections displaying just how big a tent Democratic voters have become.

Republicans like Trump know that labeling conventional Democratic politicians as socialists and communists is a political ploy. But Mamdani himself, they point out, describes his views as socialist, a toxic national brand that could hobble Democratic candidates across the country if Republicans succeed in casting New York’s mayor-elect as the Democrats’ future.

“After last night’s results, the decision facing all Americans could not be more clear — we have a choice between communism and common sense,” Trump said at a White House event on Wednesday. “As long as I’m in the White House, the United States is not going communist in any way, shape or form.”

In an interview with CNN shortly after Mamdani’s victory was called, Hakeem Jeffries, the House minority leader hoping to lead the party back into the majority next year, refused repeated questioning on whether Mamdani’s win might hurt Democratic prospects nationwide.

“This is the best they can come up with?” he said, adding: “We are going to win control of the House of Representatives.”

Bannon, too, warned that establishment Republicans could be mistaken in dismissing Mamdani’s populist appeal across party lines to Trump’s base of supporters. Mamdani, he noted, succeeded in driving out low-propensity voters in record numbers — a key to Trump’s success.

Tuesday’s election, he told Politico, “should be a wake-up call to the populist nationalist movement under President Trump that these are very serious people.”

“There should be even more than alarm bells,” he added. “There should be flashing red lights all over.”

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Will these six California GOP House members survive new districts?
The deep dive: Shakedown in Beverly Hills: High-stakes poker, arson and an alleged Israeli mobster
The L.A. Times Special: Toting a tambourine, she built L.A.’s first megachurch. Then she suddenly disappeared

More to come,
Michael Wilner
—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

New York’s new Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani won amid Islamophobic attacks, and is set to become the city’s first Muslim mayor. He pledged to serve all communities and to challenge United States President Trump’s policies. His win is being compared to that of London’s Muslim Mayor Sadiq Khan, a counterweight to then-United Kingdom Prime Minister Boris Johnson. Are city mayors the new resistance to right-wing governments?

A federal judge in Rhode Island ordered the Trump administration Thursday to find the money to fully fund SNAP benefits for November.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell Jr. gave President Trump’s administration until Friday to make the payments through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, though it’s unlikely the 42 million Americans — about 1 in 8, most of them in poverty — will see the money on the debit cards they use for groceries nearly that quickly.

The order was in response to a challenge from cities and nonprofits complaining that the administration was only offering to cover 65% of the maximum benefit, a decision that would have left some recipients getting nothing for this month.

“The defendants failed to consider the practical consequences associated with this decision to only partially fund SNAP,” McConnell said in a ruling from the bench after a brief hearing. “They knew that there would be a long delay in paying partial SNAP payments and failed to consider the harms individuals who rely on those benefits would suffer.”

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Thursday.

McConnell was one of two judges who ruled last week that the administration could not skip November’s benefits entirely because of the federal shutdown.

The Trump administration chose partial payments this week

Last month, the administration said that it would halt SNAP payments for November if the government shutdown wasn’t resolved.

A coalition of cities and nonprofits sued in federal court in Rhode Island and Democratic state officials from across the country did so in Massachusetts.

The judges in both cases ordered the government to use one emergency reserve fund containing more than $4.6 billion to pay for SNAP for November but gave it leeway to tap other money to make the full payments, which cost between $8.5 billion and $9 billion each month.

On Monday, the administration said it would not use additional money, saying it was up to Congress to appropriate the funds for the program and that the other money was needed to shore up other child hunger programs.

The partial funding brought on complications

McConnell harshly criticized the Trump administration for making that choice.

“Without SNAP funding for the month of November, 16 million children are immediately at risk of going hungry,” he said. “This should never happen in America. In fact, it’s likely that SNAP recipients are hungry as we sit here.”

Tyler Becker, the attorney for the government, unsuccessfully argued that the Trump administration had followed the court’s order in issuing the partial payments. “This all comes down to Congress not having appropriated funds because of the government shutdown,” he said.

Kristin Bateman, a lawyer for the coalition of cities and nonprofit organizations, told the judge the administration had other reasons for not fully funding the benefits.

“What defendants are really trying to do is to leverage people’s hunger to gain partisan political advantage in the shutdown fight,” Bateman told the court.

McConnell said last week’s order required that those payments be made “expeditiously” and “efficiently” — and by Wednesday — or a full payment would be required. “Nothing was done consistent with the court’s order to clear the way to expeditiously resolve it,” McConnell said.

There were other twists and turns this week

The administration said in a court filing on Monday that it could take weeks or even months for some states to make calculations and system changes to load the debit cards used in the SNAP program. At the time, it said it would fund 50% of the maximum benefits.

The next day, Trump appeared to threaten not to pay the benefits at all unless Democrats in Congress agreed to reopen the government. His press secretary later said that the partial benefits were being paid for November — and that it is future payments that are at risk if the shutdown continues.

And Wednesday night, it recalculated, telling states that there was enough money to pay for 65% of the maximum benefits.

Under a decades-old formula in federal regulations, everyone who received less than the maximum benefit would get a larger percentage reduction. Some families would have received nothing and some single people and two-person households could have gotten as little as $16.

Carmel Scaife, a former day care owner in Milwaukee who hasn’t been able to work since receiving multiple severe injuries in a car accident seven years ago, said she normally receives $130 a month from SNAP. She said that despite bargain hunting, that is not nearly enough for a month’s worth of groceries.

Scaife, 56, said that any cuts to her benefit will mean she will need to further tap her Social Security income for groceries. “That’ll take away from the bills that I pay,” she said. “But that’s the only way I can survive.”

The next legal step is unclear

This type of order is usually not subject to an appeal, but the Trump administration has challenged other rulings like it before.

An organization whose lawyers filed the challenge signaled it would continue the battle if needed.

“We shouldn’t have to force the President to care for his citizens,” Democracy Forward President and CEO Skye Perryman said in a statement, “but we will do whatever is necessary to protect people and communities.”

It often takes SNAP benefits a week or more to be loaded onto debit cards once states initiate the process.

Mulvihill and Casey write for the Associated Press. AP writers Sara Cline in Baton Rouge, La.; Susan Haigh in Hartford, Conn.; and Gary Robertson in Raleigh, N.C., contributed to this report.

Two days after passing through the Strait of Gibraltar en route to the Caribbean, the aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford has not moved significantly from a position just west of Morocco in North Africa, the Navy confirmed to us Thursday. The flattop and elements of its strike group were ordered by President Donald Trump to join the ongoing enhanced counter-narcotics mission in the region, but it is unclear if plans have changed.

The relatively static position of the Ford and at least two of its escorts comes as reports are emerging that the Trump administration has decided, for now, not to carry out land strikes against Venezuela. It is unknown at the moment if there is a correlation, and the possibility remains that the carrier could still soon sail westward. We have reached out to the White House for clarification.

The Trump administration on Wednesday told Congress it is holding off for now on strikes inside Venezuela out of concern over the legal authority to do so, CNN reported on Thursday. The briefing was conducted by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and an official from the White House’s Office of Legal Counsel, the network reported, citing sources familiar with the events.

Lawmakers were told that the authority given to suspected drug boats did not apply to land strikes, the network noted. So far, nearly 70 people have been killed in at least 16 publicly known attacks on vessels allegedly smuggling drugs in the Caribbean and Pacific. The most recent acknowledged strike took place on Tuesday. The strikes have garnered heavy criticism for being extrajudicial and carried out without Congressional authorization.

Today, at the direction of President Trump, the Department of War carried out a lethal kinetic strike on a vessel operated by a Designated Terrorist Organization (DTO).

Intelligence confirmed that the vessel was involved in illicit narcotics smuggling, transiting along a known… pic.twitter.com/OsQuHrYLMp

— Secretary of War Pete Hegseth (@SecWar) November 5, 2025

Asked if the administration is indeed opting against land attacks on Venezuela, at least for now, the White House gave us the following response:

“President Trump was elected with a resounding mandate to take on the cartels and stop the scourge of narcoterrorism from killing Americans,” a White House official told us. “The President continues to take actions consistent with his responsibility to protect Americans and pursuant to his constitutional authority. All actions comply fully with the law of armed conflict.” 

CNN’s reporting came after a Wall Street Journal story on Wednesday stating that President Donald Trump “recently expressed reservations to top aides about launching military action to oust Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.”

Trump feared that strikes might not force Maduro to step down, the newspaper noted. Though ostensibly begun as an effort to stem the flow of drugs, it has grown into a massive show of military force aimed partially at Maduro.

The administration is considering three main options for dealing with Maduro, The New York Times reported earlier this week. They include stepping up economic pressure on Venezuela, supporting that nation’s opposition while boosting the U.S. military presence to add pressure on the Venezuelan leader, and initiating airstrikes or covert operations aimed at government and military facilities and personnel.

However, the goal is in flux, administration officials acknowledge, according to the Journal. Meanwhile, Trump has also delivered mixed messages, saying he doubts there will be an attack but that Maduro must go.

What is clear is that there is a massive U.S. military presence in the Caribbean, which includes at least eight surface warships, a special operations mothership, a nuclear-powered fast attack submarine, F-35B stealth fighters, AC-130 gunships, airlifters, MQ-9 Reaper drones and more than 10,000 troops.

The Ford was supposed to join that force, but if the administration is content for now to hit boats suspected of carrying drugs, it might not make sense to move the carrier and escort ships more than 3,600 miles west, especially as there is high demand elsewhere for American naval presence, including in Europe, where the supercarrier just came from.

The issue of wear and tear on the force is something that the Pentagon will have to evaluate as it decides which assets to keep and which to pull from the Caribbean. Navy vessels began arriving in the region in late August and at some point, they will need relief. That could mean bringing in ships, possibly from other regions. The same can be said for aircraft units and personnel deployed around the region for the operation. Those forces can only remain spun-up for so long, or the operation needs to be adapted for a long-term enhanced presence. This could very well be underway already, although we have not confirmed this as being the case. However, being so close to the U.S. mainland reduces some of those concerns, especially for rotating units in and out.

Regardless of Trump’s intentions, the U.S. military presence continues to endure in the region. Thursday afternoon, two more B-52H strategic bombers flew near the coast of Venezuela, according to online flight trackers. These bomber flights have become something of a routine at this point. In addition, the San Antonio class amphibious transport dock ship USS Fort Lauderdale is once again back in the Caribbean after a pitstop in Florida for routine maintenance.

At 5 p.m., the U.S. Senate is scheduled to hold a floor vote on a bipartisan war powers resolution that would block the use of the U.S. Armed Forces to engage in hostilities within or against Venezuela, unless that action has been authorized by Congress. A similar measure failed several weeks ago and it remains to be seen if news that the administration is holding off on striking Venezuela will move the needle on that resolution.

Meanwhile, we will continue to monitor the progress of the Ford and the U.S. military presence arrayed against Maduro and provide updates when warranted.

Update: 6:07 PM Eastern –

The Senate bipartisan war powers resolution was voted down by a vote of 51 to 49.

Contact the author: [email protected] 

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court has cleared the way for President Trump to remove transgender markers from new passports and to require applicants to designate they were male or female at birth.

By a 6-3 vote, the justices granted another emergency appeal from Trump’s lawyers and put on hold a Boston judge’s order that prevented the president’s new passport policy from taking effect.

“Displaying passport holders’ sex at birth no more offends equal protection principles than displaying their country of birth,” the court said in an unsigned order. “In both cases, the Government is merely attesting to a historical fact without subjecting anyone to differential treatment.”

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson filed a dissent, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

She said there was no emergency, and the change in the passport policy would pose a danger for transgender travelers.

“The current record demonstrates that transgender people who use gender-incongruent passports are exposed to increased violence, harassment, and discrimination,” she wrote. “Airport checkpoints are stressful and invasive for travelers under typical circumstances—even without the added friction of being forced to present government-issued identification documents that do not reflect one’s identity.

“Thus, by preventing transgender Americans from obtaining gender-congruent passports, the Government is doing more than just making a statement about its belief that transgender identity is ‘false.’ The Passport Policy also invites the probing, and at times humiliating, additional scrutiny these plaintiffs have experienced.”

Upon taking office in January, Trump ordered the military to remove transgender troops from its ranks and told agencies to remove references to “gender identity” or transgender persons from government documents, including passports.

The Supreme Court has put both policies into effect by setting aside orders from judges who temporarily blocked the changes as discriminatory and unconstitutional.

U.S. passports did not have sex markers until the 1970s. For most of time since then, passport holders have had two choices: “M” for male and “F” for female. Beginning in 1992, the State Department allowed applicants to designate a sex marker that differed from their sex at birth.

In 2021, the Biden administration added an “X” marker as an option for transgender and non-binary persons.

Trump sought a return to the earlier era. He issued an executive order on “gender ideology extremism” and said his administration would “recognize two sexes, male and female.” He required “government-issued identification documents, including passports” to “accurately reflect the holder’s sex” assigned at birth.

The ACLU sued on behalf of transgender individuals who would be affected by the new policy. They won a ruling in June from U.S. District Judge Julia Kobick who blocked the new policy from taking effect.

The transgender plaintiffs “seek the same thing millions of Americans take for granted: passports that allow them to travel without fear of misidentification, harassment, or violence,” the ACLU attorneys said in an appeal to Supreme Court last month.

They said the administration’s new policy would undercut the usefulness of passports for identification.

“By classifying people based on sex assigned at birth and exclusively issuing sex markers on passports based on that sex classification, the State Department deprives plaintiffs of a usable identification document and the ability to travel safely…{It} undermines the very purpose of passports as identity documents that officials check against the bearer’s appearance,” they wrote.

But Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer argued the plaintiffs had no authority over official documents. He said the justices should set aside the judge’s order and allow the new policy to take effect.

“Private citizens cannot force the government to use inaccurate sex designations on identification documents that fail to reflect the person’s biological sex — especially not on identification documents that are government property and an exercise of the President’s constitutional and statutory power to communicate with foreign governments,” he wrote.

WASHINGTON — Elections this week that energized Democrats and angered President Trump have cast a chill over efforts to end the record-breaking government shutdown, raising fresh doubts about the possibility of a breakthrough despite the punishing toll of federal closures on the country.

Trump has increased pressure on Senate Republicans to end the shutdown — now at 37 days, the longest in U.S. history — calling it a “big factor, negative” in the poor GOP showings across the country. Democrats saw Trump’s comments as a reason to hold firm, believing his involvement in talks could lead to a deal on extending health care subsidies, a key sticking point to win their support.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune opened what’s seen as a pivotal day in efforts to end the government shutdown by saying the next step hinges on a response from Democrats to an offer on the table.

“It’s in their court. It’s up to them,” Thune told reporters Thursday.

But Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer held firm in opening remarks Thursday, saying voters “fired a political torpedo at Trump and Republicans” in Tuesday’s election.

“Donald Trump clearly is feeling pressure to bring this shutdown to an end. Well, I have good news for the president: Meet with Democrats, reopen the government,” Schumer said on the Senate floor.

Trump is refusing to meet with Democrats, insisting they must open the government first. But complicating the GOP’s strategy, Trump is increasingly fixated instead on pushing Republicans to scrap the Senate filibuster to speed reopening — a step many GOP senators reject out of hand. He kept up the pressure in a video Wednesday, saying the Senate’s 60-vote threshold to pass legislation should be “terminated.”

“This is much bigger than the shutdown,” Trump said. “This is the survival of our country.”

Senate Democrats face pressures of their own, both from unions eager for the shutdown to end and from allied groups that want them to hold firm. Many see the Democrats’ decisive gubernatorial wins in Virginia and New Jersey as validation of their strategy to hold the government closed until expiring health care subsidies are addressed.

“It would be very strange for the American people to have weighed in, in support of Democrats standing up and fighting for them, and within days for us to surrender without having achieved any of the things that we’ve been fighting for,” said Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn.

Meanwhile, talks grind on, but the shutdown’s toll deepens. On Wednesday, the Federal Aviation Administration announced plans to reduce air traffic by 10% across 40 high-volume markets beginning Friday to maintain safety amid staffing shortages. Millions of people have already been affected by halted government programs and missed federal paychecks — with more expected as another round of paydays approaches next week.

Progressives see election wins as reason to fight

Grassroots Democratic groups nationwide touted Tuesday’s election results as voter approval of the shutdown strategy — and warned lawmakers against cutting a deal too soon.

“Moderate Senate Democrats who are looking for an off-ramp right now are completely missing the moment,” said Katie Bethell, political director of MoveOn, a progressive group. “Voters have sent a resounding message: We want leaders who fight for us, and we want solutions that make life more affordable.”

Some Senate Democrats echoed that sentiment. Sen. Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent who caucuses with Democrats and a leading voice in the progressive movement, said Democrats “have got to remain strong” and should secure assurances on extending health care subsidies — including “a commitment from the speaker of the House that he will support the legislation and that the president will sign.”

Still, how firmly the party remains dug in remains to be seen. Some Democrats have been working with Republicans to find a way out of the standoff, and they held firm after the election that it had not impacted their approach.

“I don’t feel that the elections changed where I was,” said Sen. John Hickenlooper, D-Colo. “I still feel I want to get out of the shutdown.”

Some Republicans also shared in Trump’s concerns that the shutdown is becoming a drag on the party.

“Polls show that most voters blame Republicans more than Democrats,” said Sen. Josh Hawley, a Missouri Republican. “That’s understandable given who controls the levers of power.”

Trump sets another shutdown record

While some Democrats saw Trump’s comments on the shutdown Wednesday as evidence he’d soon get more involved, he’s largely stayed out of the fray. Instead, the talks have intensified among a loose coalition of centrist senators trying to negotiate an end to the shutdown.

Trump has refused to negotiate with Democrats over their demands to salvage expiring health insurance subsidies until they agree to reopen the government. But skeptical Democrats question whether the Republican president will keep his word, particularly after his administration restricted SNAP food aid despite court orders to ensure funds are available to prevent hunger.

Trump’s approach to the shutdown stands in marked contrast to his first term, when the government was partially closed for 35 days over his demands for money to build a U.S.-Mexico border wall. At that time, he met publicly and negotiated with congressional leaders. Unable to secure the money, he relented in 2019.

This time, it’s not just Trump declining to engage in talks. The congressional leaders are at a standoff, and House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., sent lawmakers home in September after they approved their own funding bill, refusing further negotiations.

Johnson dismissed the party’s election losses and said he’s looking forward to a midterm election in 2026 that’ll more reflect Trump’s tenure.

In the meantime, food aid, child care money and countless other government services are being seriously interrupted. Hundreds of thousands of federal workers have been furloughed or are expected to work without pay.

Senators search for potential deal

Central to any resolution will be a series of agreements that would need to be upheld not only by the Senate but also by the House and the White House, which is not at all certain in Washington.

Asked if the House would guarantee a vote on extending health care subsidies if the Senate struck a deal, Johnson said Thursday, “I’m not promising anybody anything.”

Senators from both major parties, particularly the members of the powerful Appropriations Committee, are pushing to ensure the normal government funding process in Congress can be put back on track. Among the goals is guaranteeing upcoming votes on a smaller package of bills to fund various aspects of government such as agricultural programs and military construction projects at bases.

More difficult, a substantial number of senators also want some resolution to the standoff over the funding for the Affordable Care Act subsidies that are set to expire at year’s end.

With insurance premium notices being sent, millions of people are experiencing sticker shock on skyrocketing prices. The loss of enhanced federal subsidies, which were put in place during the COVID-19 pandemic and come in the form of tax credits, are expected to leave many people unable to buy health insurance.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., has promised Democrats at least a vote on their preferred health care proposal, on a date certain, as part of any deal to reopen government. But that’s not enough for some senators, who see the health care deadlock as part of their broader concerns with Trump’s direction for the country.

Cappelletti, Mascaro and Jalonick write for the Associated Press.