SNAP funding expires.

I'm Isaac Saul, and this is Tangle: an independent, nonpartisan, subscriber-supported politics newsletter that summarizes the best arguments from across the political spectrum on the news of the day — then “my take.”

Are you new here? Get free emails to your inbox daily. Would you rather listen? You can find our podcast here.

Today’s read: 15 minutes.

The conservative view.

Two weeks ago, Executive Editor Isaac Saul published a piece titled “Yes, things are pretty bad right now,” highlighting his concerns with many of the Trump administration’s actions. The piece was initially made available to paid subscribers only, but we dropped the paywall on the following Monday after the piece was picked up by several other news organizations.

On Friday, Associate Editor Audrey Moorehead published a response to that piece. It, too, was paywalled upon release, but a few readers pointed out the unfairness of leaving a counterargument gated behind a paywall — which is a fair point. So, in the interest of balance, we’ve also dropped the paywall on Audrey’s piece, which you can now read in full here.

Sorry about that.

In this weekend’s Sunday edition, we used the wrong link for our recommended reading section. We apologize for that mishap. For those who were interested in reading the story on the mysterious deaths in a Toronto hospital in the 1980s, you can find it here.

Quick hits.

1. Tens of thousands of people are believed to have been killed by paramilitary fighters from the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) in western Sudan after the Sudanese military withdrew from the regional capital el-Fasher. Survivors report that RSF fighters have opened fire on civilians, and satellite images appear to show evidence of mass killings across the city. (The killings) 
2. President Donald Trump said the U.S. may cut off aid to Nigeria and consider military action if the government does not protect Christians in the country, claiming, “Christianity is facing an existential threat in Nigeria.” (The comments)
3. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced the U.S. military struck a boat allegedly trafficking drugs in the Caribbean Sea, killing three people on board. It is the 15th confirmed strike on an alleged drug boat in the Caribbean or Pacific since September 2. (The strike)
4. Head Start programs, which offer free early childhood development programs and healthcare services for low-income families, began closing down as their funding lapsed due to the ongoing government shutdown. (The closures)
5. Manufacturing company Kimberly-Clark agreed to buy Kenvue, the maker of Tylenol, for approximately $40 billion. The acquisition will create a global health and wellness company that includes major brands like Kleenex and mouthwash. (The deal)

Today’s topic.

SNAP benefits. On Saturday, the ongoing government shutdown caused federal funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to lapse. The funding gap will delay scheduled payments to many program beneficiaries who use the money to help cover food costs, putting the roughly 42 million people receiving benefits at risk of food insecurity. On Friday, two federal judges ruled that the government must keep the program at least partially operational using contingency funding and gave the Trump administration until Monday to respond to the order. 

Back up: SNAP distributes grocery assistance to families who qualify, based on an individual’s or household’s gross monthly income. In fiscal year 2024, 12.3% of United States residents received SNAP benefits, or 41.7 million people on average each month. Benefits are disbursed through a prepaid card that can be used to purchase food items from a list of eligible products, including meat, produce, grains, snacks, and nonalcoholic beverages. This July’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act added new eligibility restrictions for SNAP, including stricter work requirements for adults without dependents; those new rules went into effect on Saturday. 

Ahead of the November 1 funding lapse, the Trump administration said it would not use emergency funds to cover the shortfall. On October 24, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), which oversees food assistance programs, issued a memo claiming that it could only use those funds for emergencies “that can come on quickly and without notice,” such as hurricanes, tornadoes, and floods. Furthermore, it advised that states should not expect to be reimbursed if they cover SNAP expenses during the shutdown. 

25 states sued the Trump administration over its decision to allow SNAP payments to lapse, arguing the decision would “cause deterioration of public health and well-being.” District Judge Indira Talwani found that the states were likely to succeed in their challenge, while District Judge John McConnell said he would order the administration to disburse the government’s contingency funds to extend the benefits as soon as possible. “It’s clear that when compared to the millions of people that will go without funds for food, versus the agency’s desire not to use contingency funds in case there’s a hurricane need, the balances of those equities clearly goes on the side of ensuring that people are fed,” McConnell wrote. 

In a post on Friday, President Trump called the rulings “conflicting” but said he had “instructed our lawyers to ask the Court to clarify how we can legally fund SNAP as soon as possible.”

On Saturday and Sunday, food pantries, religious organizations, and other groups across the country gave away free meals and groceries to people impacted by the SNAP funding lapse. SNAP recipients have expressed uncertainty about when and whether their benefit cards will be reloaded, though Judge McConnell said the Trump administration must begin to do so by Wednesday. 

Today, we’ll explore arguments from the left and right about SNAP benefits expiring, followed by my take.

What the left is saying.

• The left criticizes Trump for leveraging SNAP benefits  in shutdown negotiations.
• Some say the most vulnerable will bear the brunt of expiring benefits.
• Others suggest SNAP recipients are being inaccurately portrayed in the funding fight.

In MSNBC, David A. Super argued “the White House is holding SNAP funding hostage. That’s cruel — and illegal.”

“SNAP owes much to political leaders of both parties. President Richard Nixon insisted that food assistance be available nationwide. Conservative Republicans have repeatedly partnered with liberal Democrats over decades to improve SNAP’s efficiency, effectiveness and accountability,” Super said. “Since adequate nutrition is essential for health and for the ability to seek and perform work, Congress insisted that SNAP ‘shall be furnished to all eligible households who make application.’ Inclusion of sufficient funds to serve all households in annual appropriations bills has never been controversial.”

“Even if SNAP contingency funds were not available, Congress has given the USDA broad authority to transfer funds among food assistance programs,” Super wrote. “As the child nutrition programs only spend about $3 billion per month, transferring funds to SNAP for November benefits would still leave enough in the child nutrition account to support more than half a year of those programs’ operations… Claims that transferring necessary funds to SNAP would endanger school meals or access to infant formula through WIC are fearmongering at its worst, wholly unsupported by the actual numbers.”

In Bloomberg, Patricia Lopez said “hungry Americans will pay the price for this shutdown.”

“SNAP recipients have become helpless pawns on a board they don’t control. Who are these 42 million people? They are single parents and people with disabilities. They are children. They are seniors who have outlived their savings. They are workers whose wages are so meager they still qualify for free food. More than 1 million are veterans. They are 1 in 8 Americans who collect an average benefit of $187 a month for groceries,” Lopez wrote. “The administration now asserts that contingency funds must be reserved for natural disasters and other ‘emergencies.’ Apparently, 41 million people going hungry does not constitute an emergency.

“Trump has said repeatedly that he would use the shutdown to cut ‘Democrat-oriented programs.’ It may be that he thinks letting SNAP funding run out is a clever way of hurting Democratic supporters. But Republicans also rely on SNAP. Rural areas, which tend to support Republicans, use SNAP at a higher rate than cities,” Lopez said. “Republicans are irrational to refrain from negotiating with Democrats, but Trump does not want to negotiate here so much as bully his opponents into submission. And while he does that, millions of Americans are left to figure out where their next meal is coming from.”

In The New York Times, Elizabeth Austin wrote “$149.57 is going to have to feed my family indefinitely.”

“Barring an end to the government shutdown, SNAP benefits will not be paid out in November, leaving tens of millions of recipients wondering how they’re going to afford food next month. My own remaining SNAP balance — $149.57 — was supposed to help carry my family until Nov. 9. Now, it will have to stretch indefinitely,” Austin said. “In 2012, I was the mother of two children under 3 years old. That year, their father disappeared from our lives without warning, leaving me with no way to feed them or myself. To survive, I applied for SNAP… At the end of 2023, after my daughter had survived a nearly three-year fight with cancer, I lost my job. I applied for SNAP benefits again.”

“Conversations around SNAP benefits are often fraught, dominated by the simplistic refrain that recipients should ‘get a job.’ My experience illustrates why this response misses the mark. It took me time to find a job when I first needed SNAP, when I was raising two small children alone,” Austin wrote. “But our government is making the tired ‘get a job’ refrain into policy. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act included an estimated $186 billion cut to SNAP benefits through 2034, which could drastically reduce or eliminate monthly benefits for millions. These expected cuts, now compounded by a government shutdown holding food assistance hostage, will devastate families.”

What the right is saying.

• The right criticizes Democrats for exacerbating the shutdown and putting the SNAP program in jeopardy.
• Some contend the Trump administration would be unwise to oppose funding in court.
• Others suggest now is the time for a privately funded SNAP alternative. 

In The Daily Caller, Rep. Austin Scott (R-GA) criticized Democrats for using “starving Americans as ‘leverage.’”

“Congressional Democrats’ calculated refusal to do their job and reopen the government puts these vulnerable Americans at risk of losing access to food assistance through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) in November. These aren’t just statistics: they’re our vulnerable population and hardworking families who depend on SNAP benefits to purchase groceries and ensure their households don’t go hungry,” Scott wrote. “With Democrats continuing to hold the government hostage and use American families as leverage over their demand for taxpayer-funded healthcare for illegal aliens, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is now legally unable to distribute SNAP benefits for November.”

“The SNAP contingency fund is a limited reserve that can only be deployed in response to natural disasters and other emergencies. It cannot replace regular funding for monthly SNAP benefits. Additionally, the contingency fund is not even large enough to cover a full month of SNAP benefits if the funds were accessible,” Scott said. “By shutting down the government, Democrats have forced hundreds of thousands of federal workers into genuine financial hardship by depriving them of their paychecks, while simultaneously blocking the very safety net programs specifically designed to assist workers during times of need.”

In National Review, Dan McLaughlin wrote about the two rulings on funding SNAP.

“The claim, accepted by Rhode Island federal district Judge John McConnell and Massachusetts federal district judge Indira Talwani… is that the executive branch has access to emergency funds, and the two judges believe that Congress thinks that SNAP benefits are a greater emergency in spite of not funding them than are other things that are currently not funded,” McLaughlin said. “I get that, if the Justice Department thinks that this is a nonsense legal argument, it is inclined to stand on principle. If so, more power to the DOJ. But it seems to me that this is not the best political strategy for the administration.”

“The GOP posture toward a program such as SNAP (a longtime Democratic priority) should be to visibly demonstrate that the administration is willing to fund it but is being thwarted by Democrats. Positioning things so that it is Democrats going to court to get SNAP benefits paid and Republicans fighting against paying them is not the best look,” McLaughlin wrote. “If Republicans want to make Democrats own the shutdown, and to put more public pressure on them to come to the table… this seems not to be the best way to do it.”

In The Daily Signal, Tyler O'Neil offered “a modest proposal for SNAP.”

“If the impasse continues, I’d humbly suggest that private charities and policy nonprofits team up to replace the program with a privately funded alternative that also helps recipients go from dependency to self-sufficiency. Private charities are already starting this process, but conservatives should band together to transform a private effort into a policy-shifting initiative,” O’Neil wrote. “The food stamps program has long fostered dependence on government programs… The program ballooned during the COVID-19 pandemic, rising as labor force participation declined. SNAP serves 4.3 million more people than it did before the pandemic.

“Congress can and should amend the program, strengthening work requirements and tightening eligibility, to make sure that the truly needy receive the program and to incentivize self-sufficiency,” O’Neil said. “Yet, if private charities and policy nonprofits team up to meet the unmet needs during this government shutdown, they may find an unprecedented opportunity to replace a bloated federal dependency program with a smart, privately funded road map to self-sufficiency. Americans don’t want 41 million people to go hungry, but we also don’t want 41 million people to become perpetually dependent on the federal government for food assistance.”

My take.

Reminder: “My take” is a section where I give myself space to share my own personal opinion. If you have feedback, criticism or compliments, don't unsubscribe. Write in by replying to this email, or leave a comment.

• Republicans and Democrats might have found the issue they both care about enough to resolve this shutdown.
• Funding SNAP is vitally important, and not funding it right now may be illegal.
• Without the government, though, we’ll all need to step up for each other.

First, most Republicans and Democrats seem to genuinely want to keep SNAP payments flowing. The Trump administration is asking for clearer direction from the courts on how to proceed while trying to pressure Democrats to fold on their Affordable Care Act funding fight, and Democrats seem to be hoping that any pause or delay in SNAP payments forces Republicans back to the negotiating table, sparking a quick resolution. Either way, both sides clearly recognize the moral and political risks here — which is a good start.

Second, I’m not entirely sure withholding SNAP funding is actually legal. Writers like David Super (under “What the left is saying”) made this case pretty clearly, arguing that the Trump administration is essentially denying its own authority to disburse the funds while waiting for “clarity” from the courts. I think Super is right. The law stipulates that contingency funding for SNAP is to be used when regular funding runs out, and the funds are available and ready to use. The idea that Trump can impose tariffs on nearly every country in the world, refuse to spend congressionally authorized funding and find cash for the military during the shutdown, but can’t possibly find a way to fund SNAP without clear direction from a judge, is self-evidently absurd.

Third, and perhaps most importantly: We may finally have a defining issue for this shutdown. A few weeks ago, I noted that one of the things that made this shutdown peculiar was that both sides didn’t even agree on what issues they were trying to solve. Democrats have tried to make it about expiring Obamacare subsidies, but Republicans have so far waved that issue away. Republicans have tried to get Democrats to fold by threatening federal job cuts, but Democrats haven’t taken the bait. Now, SNAP will be the issue. It’s awful, obviously, that the poorest and most vulnerable Americans are used as chess pieces — but a real off-ramp absolutely requires an issue like this that both sides find unacceptable, will create a public outcry, and will force everyone back to the table. And the louder the public outcry, the more pressure for a resolution.

All of that might be considered “good news” if you want to see SNAP funding continue, or a resolution to this shutdown come. 

The bad news is basically everything else. 

Regardless of what you think the role of the federal government should be, that we are now staring down a desperate inability to serve the needy — amid the world-leading wealth we have in the United States — is an utter failure of society and governance. Some food pantries are already experiencing huge lines. Philanthropic leaders say it won’t be long before they can’t meet the needs of the hungry. And in the meantime, our actual representatives — members of Congress whose job it is to solve this stuff — are sitting at home. The House has not met for legislative business in over six weeks, and the Senate is closed.

I’ve also noticed that the commentary has suddenly shifted to ways we might reform SNAP. Some commentators above have even started proposing ideas for changing the program, either by tightening eligibility further or aiming to cull the number of people receiving benefits. Of course, SNAP — like any government program — isn’t perfect. But what are we actually doing here? This shutdown is not about reforming SNAP. There is no debate in Congress about reforming SNAP. Trump and Republicans already passed a bill that changed the program’s eligibility. If people want SNAP reformed, great; Congress should get back to work and do that.

It’s also not something I’d view as a top priority. SNAP is a pretty incredible program. It has ballooned, yes; and we want fewer people on it, of course (in a perfect world, the program wouldn’t need to exist at all). But as long as people in our country live in poverty, we’ll need programs to help them. 

The program costs $100 billion a year (for context, Veterans Affairs medical care costs the federal government about $116 billion). Put differently, SNAP accounts for roughly one and a half cents of every federal dollar spent, with benefits coming out to about $6 per person per day. If you asked me what percentage of my tax dollars I would want to go to keeping people from going hungry, I’d probably give you a number higher than 1.5%. A government program this large will always come with some fraud, but most people who use these benefits truly do need them — for the 41 million people living on SNAP, it’s a difficult and frugal existence. The program is also efficient: 93% of its funds go to households, with the rest going to support admin and employment (in the world of philanthropies, that’s really good). 

SNAP also reaches nearly every corner of society. It benefits both working families and retirees, single parents and the disabled, military veterans and children, in red and blue states (the rate of SNAP recipients is highest in New Mexico, Oregon, Oklahoma, and Louisiana). These people deserve our sympathy and aid, especially at such an efficient cost. 

So, now what? First and foremost, Trump should follow the law. He should act swiftly to shore up the funding lapse and keep dollars flowing to a program that helps the poorest Americans (it’s not like he’s been shy about flexing executive authority so far, and acting decisively here would be more legally supported than doing nothing. Second, Democrats and Republicans need to recognize that this standoff is now inflicting real pain on tens of millions of Americans. SNAP benefits are in danger, travel is a nightmare, and the government’s functionality is slowly but considerably degrading. Congress needs to show up in Washington, D.C., talk to each other, and get through the impasse. They need to do their jobs.

Finally, we — the people — actually need to step up. I rarely do this kind of thing in Tangle, but I struggle to imagine a better opportunity to put out a call to action. Remember: This program touches every kind of person you can imagine, from every political background, in every state, of every class, race, and creed. SNAP has to exist because it’s hard to get people to consistently support private solutions with any kind of reliability; if private and nonprofit efforts were enough, we wouldn’t need the government. 

Right now, though, Americans can fill the gap.

My son’s daycare is collecting donations to support local programs helping people whose benefits may lapse. I can almost guarantee there are food pantries in your area who need help — find them, donate if you can, volunteer if you can’t, and raise awareness among your community. 

In a nation of doers, we don’t have to rely solely on our elected representatives to do the good work. Indeed, it’s evident that we can’t. Americans can keep the pressure on the president and Congress to sort this mess out, while also stepping up in the places we call home to support the people who need it.  

Take the survey: What is your opinion on SNAP? Let us know.

Disagree? That's okay. My opinion is just one of many. Write in and let us know why, and we'll consider publishing your feedback.

Your questions, answered.

Q: Explain the national debt. Who do we owe? How can we pay it off? How serious are the consequences?

— Judy from Greentown, IN

Tangle: The national debt, in simple terms, is the sum of the deficits the federal government accrues year over year. With interest and deferments, it’s actually more complicated than that — but that basic story effectively describes how the debt is accrued and who holds it.

When the federal government needs more cash to pay its obligations, it borrows more to do so. The primary way to do this is through auctioning government bonds: The government sells promissory notes to investors who consider the United States government to be a safe bet to pay back its loans. Many different kinds of investors find that attractive: approximately 24% of our debt is held internationally, 17% is held by private investors, 13% is kept by the Federal Reserve itself, and another 5% is held by financial institutions.

However, another 20% of the debt the U.S. has is held by other parts of the government. Perhaps most notably, the Treasury often borrows from the Social Security trust fund (and has never failed to pay it back). Then another 5% is held by local or state governments.

Accordingly, the only way to pay the debt off is to have adequate revenue each year with which to pay the debt down (i.e., not run a deficit). That may be more difficult than it sounds. The United States government has run deficits over $1 trillion for several consecutive years — and since the national debt now stands at over $38 trillion, servicing it is now the federal government’s third-largest expenditure (behind Social Security and healthcare).

If the government were to default, even temporarily, on any of its debts, the implications would be enormous. In all likelihood, interest rates would spike, the government’s credit rating would tank, the dollar would be devalued, the stock market would plunge, and general turmoil would ensue. And in such a scenario, the government would prioritize paying back its own departments and other governments — some of the last people to be paid would be citizens who are owed a tax refund. 

So, all in all, the people who would feel the consequences of the government not paying its debt back most acutely would be regular Americans.

Want to have a question answered in the newsletter? You can reply to this email (it goes straight to our inbox) or fill out this form.

Under the radar.

According to new data from the Gallup National Health and Well-Being Index, the adult obesity rate in the United States declined from a high of 39.9% in 2022 to 37.0% in 2025. The adult obesity rate rose steadily between 2008 and 2022 but has now declined for the past three years. The decline has coincided with an increase in the use of GLP-1 drugs, such as Ozempic and Wegovy. In Q1 2024, 5.8% of U.S. adults reported taking an injection for weight loss, while 12.4% reported doing so in Q2 and Q3 2024. Gallup also found that the increased use of GLP-1 drugs aligned with lower obesity rates across sex and age groups. Gallup has the findings.

Numbers.

• 70.2%. The percentage of the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) total food assistance spending in fiscal year 2024 that went to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). 
• 42%. The percentage of SNAP recipients between the age of 18 to 59. 
• 39%. The percentage of SNAP recipients below the age of 18. 
• 21.2%. The percentage of New Mexico residents receiving SNAP benefits in FY2024, the highest percentage of any state.
• 4.8%. The percentage of Utah residents receiving SNAP benefits in FY2024, the lowest percentage of any state.
• $99.8 billion. Federal spending on SNAP in FY2024.
• $128.2 billion. Federal spending on SNAP in FY2021, the most of any year in the 21st century. 
• $28.5 billion. Federal spending on SNAP in FY2000. 

The extras.

• One year ago today we had just written a Friday edition of assorted thoughts before election day.
• The most clicked link in Thursday’s newsletter was Isaac’s interview with Dick and Emily of This American Life fame.
• Nothing to do with politics: In case you missed it, here’s the thrilling conclusion to Game 7 of the World Series condensed into nine minutes.
• Thursday’s survey: 2,564 readers responded to our survey on Graham Platner’s scandals with 45% saying Platner should drop out of the race. “The comments and tattoo are major issues, certainly. And if there was evidence of change in the past 10 years I might consider supporting him but there is no contrition, no acts of penance,” one respondent said. “I wouldn’t vote for him, but let the primary voters decide,” said another.

Have a nice day.

Since moving from China to Moncton in New Brunswick, Canada, 14-year-old Cheng En. Du and his family have found their neighbors helpful and welcoming. To pay that kindness back, Du and his mom, Geng Chen, have started picking up trash around their neighborhood. The duo has now organized eight community pickups, and they plan to do more. “The power of individuals is small, but if we can plant the seeds of public welfare in others’ hearts, we may grow into a true green forest in the future,” Chen said. The CBC has the story.