Society

Subterms

    Latest story

    175 Shares99 Views

    Why did young men move left in this month’s US elections? | Cory Alpert

    by

    Just a few months ago, it seemed that the political landscape was changing permanently, with young people shifting right – especially young men. Democrats spun up a vortex of efforts to win them back, but they often appeared to be flailing. This month’s elections, however, told a different story.Young men in the US face a political identity crisis. It should not be controversial to say that the world that many were promised as children has not come to fruition. Two decades of war and a turbulent economy have combined with a massively changing workforce. Young men’s disaffection should come as no real surprise.An entire ecosystem of hucksters has emerged to take advantage of these young people, peddling a dark vision that offers violence and control as a response to a changing world. Meanwhile, the Democratic party failed to imagine a political future that included these young men. In Democrats’ parlance, anyone who took one step in that direction was hopelessly lost, unable to see the beautiful egalitarian future that we could create together.There is a fine line here. I am not arguing for the redemption, welcome, or whitewashing of the people who have peddled this bleak reality. But we can and should build a political coalition that includes this generation, that doesn’t leave them out in the cold, only to find a home in the most bleak fringes of a political movement that tells them that a lust for control over other people, especially women, is the only way to find meaning.On the left, we tell ourselves the story of our own vaunted sympathy, and yet we assign only blame to the young men who do something similar, looking for community and only finding it among the most opportunistic and dangerous political movements. We have done little to welcome them in.And while Democrats had solid policies and economic plans, Republicans, backed by an army of digital content, were able to take the mantle of running on the economy and framing the left as cultural warriors out of touch with the majority of Americans.But the good news is that this month’s elections in Virginia, New Jersey and New York City show Democrats have learned a lesson.The three marquee campaigns of this year were all remarkably similar, despite coming from different parts of the ideological spectrum. Their messaging was relentlessly focused on affordability – how expensive and difficult life has become for the working and middle-class people of their communities. Their solutions covered a wide ideological range, but the focus remained the same.Most young men, like most trans people and Black people and immigrants and everyone else, are dealing with housing that has skyrocketed in price, especially compared with our parents’ generations. Instead of having one career in our lifetimes, we now have to continually seek new jobs. Living independently as an adult is much more expensive and complicated now than it has been. These affordability campaigns gave young men something to do about those pressures rather than ceding that frustration to the most cynical actors.Undoubtedly this conversation is easier to have when Donald Trump is taking three steps every day to dismantle the economy. There’s a real sense that the economy is getting worse. That it’s more difficult to pay bills and keep food on the table, especially when Republicans are, quite literally, ensuring that 42 million people cannot afford to keep food on their table by refusing to fund Snap during their government shutdown.Republicans got distracted, trying to defend Trump and also trying to repeat his playbook of tying Democrats to the culture war of the moment. But without Trump’s singular ability to control a media narrative, Republicans with far less political talent and capital floundered, making themselves look weak and silly in the process.The political miracle is that this ruthless focus on affordability and cost of living may have brought in many of those same young men who had followed Trump a year ago. In Virginia and New Jersey, men under 30 broke for their new Democratic governors, with about six in 10 supporting Spanberger, according to the AP. In New York, young men went for Zohran Mamdani over Andrew Cuomo by a margin of nearly 40 points, according to a Tufts Circle analysis.It turns out that these young men are not completely lost to us. We just failed to imagine a reality where they could be in our camp.Affordability broke through amid the longest government shutdown in US history, as consumer prices were rising ever higher thanks in part to Trump’s tariffs. For all of his bluster, eventually the economic reality becomes an unavoidable political crisis for anyone not far gone in his cult of personality who has to pay their bills.Mikie Sherrill in New Jersey, Abigail Spanberger in Virginia, and Mamdani in New York City showed us that the frustration that every working and middle-class person feels could be directed into a political coalition that sees marginalized people as people also affected by the greed and corruption that has made life unaffordable for so many.Young men, like everyone else, are looking for a politics that can make life a little better. Democrats are finally figuring out how to offer them that chance.

    Cory Alpert is a PhD researcher at the University of Melbourne looking at the impact of AI on democracy. He served in the Biden-Harris administration for three years More

    More stories

    • 175 Shares144 Views

      in US Politics

      CDC website altered to reflect RFK Jr’s belief in link between vaccines and autism

      by

      A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) website has been changed to reflect the belief of Robert F Kennedy Jr, the US health and human services secretary, that there is a link between vaccines and autism, a view flatly contradicted by experts and scientifically validated studies.Public health and autism specialists roundly condemned the alteration to the CDC’s “vaccine safety” webpage, after it was changed to read: “The statement ‘Vaccines do not cause autism’ is not an evidence-based claim.”Pointedly, it added: “Studies supporting a link have been ignored by health authorities.”The extent of the change was further underlined by an asterisk affixed to a pre-existing statement underneath, reading “vaccines do not cause autism”.An explanation at the bottom of the page said the statement had not been removed “due to an agreement with the chair of the US Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee that it would remain on the CDC website”.That explanation was in reference to the Louisiana Republican senator, Bill Cassidy, a medical doctor, who initially opposed Kennedy’s nomination as health secretary but later voted to confirm him on the basis that statements about how vaccines do not cause autism would remain on the CDC site.The new page did not cite any new research. It simply stated: “HHS [health and human services] has launched a comprehensive assessment of the causes of autism, including investigations on plausible biologic mechanisms and potential causal links.”The changes appear to be the latest example of Kennedy’s determination to impose his beliefs on the sprawling Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the CDC. They also triggered severe backlash from scientists and advocates, with former and present CDC staff saying the updated page did not go through the normal, scientific clearance process.“I spoke with several scientists at CDC yesterday and none were aware of this change in content,” Debra Houry, one of a group of CDC top officials who resigned in August, told the AP.“When scientists are cut out of scientific reviews, then inaccurate and ideologic information results.”The move was also condemned by the Autism Science Foundation, an organization that initially gave a cautious welcome to Kennedy’s stated mission to investigate the causes of autism – a disorder that can manifest itself in speech difficulties and repetitive behavior – after his confirmation.“We are appalled to find that the content on the CDC webpage ‘Autism and Vaccines’ has been changed and distorted, and is now filled with anti-vaccine rhetoric and outright lies about vaccines and autism,” the foundation said in a statement.A previous version of the page stated that “studies have shown that there is no link between receiving vaccines and developing autism spectrum disorder (ASD). No links have been found between any vaccine ingredients and ASD.”Widespread scientific consensus and decades of studies have firmly concluded there is no link between vaccines and autism.“The conclusion is clear and unambiguous,” said Dr Susan Kressly, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, in a statement Thursday.“We call on the CDC to stop wasting government resources to amplify false claims that sow doubt in one of the best tools we have to keep children healthy and thriving: routine immunizations.”The CDC has, until now, echoed the absence of a link in promoting Food and Drug Administration-licensed vaccines. A number of former CDC officials have said that what the CDC posts about certain subjects – including vaccine safety – can no longer be trusted.Dr Daniel Jernigan, who also resigned from the agency in August, told reporters that Kennedy seems to be “going from evidence-based decision making to decision-based evidence making”.Besides positing a link between vaccines and autism, Kennedy has subscribed to the belief that the condition may be caused by pregnant people taking Tylenol, a suspicion pushed vociferously by Donald Trump, who has urged expectant mothers to avoid taking the over-the-counter drug. More

    • 175 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Plastic surgeons wrestle with requests for ‘Mar-a-Lago face’: ‘You’re going to look like Maleficent’

      by

      Picture a plastic surgeon’s office. You might imagine a sleek Los Angeles practice, with discreet entrances meant to conceal celebrities from the paparazzi. Maybe a Dallas high-rise, where monied housewives spend on postpartum “mommy makeovers”. Or a Miami location, where influencers and OnlyFans stars film TikToks of their BBLs. One city you might not think of is Washington DC. But its buttoned-up reputation belies a newly buzzing industry.Much has been made of the so-called “Mar-a-Lago face”, or the uncannily smooth and artificially voluminous features seen on the likes of Maga elite such as Kristi Noem, Kimberly Guilfoyle, Laura Loomer and Matt Gaetz. The bee-sting puffy lips, frozen brows and taut necks have been compared to Real Housewives stars, sleep paralysis demons and – ironically, considering the Republican party’s anti-LGBTQ+ culture war – drag queens (minus the campy fun).As of January, plastic surgeons in Washington DC have seen a “surge in ‘Mar-a-Lago face’ requests from Trump insiders”, Axios recently reported. Surgeons told the outlet that more Washingtonians want their procedures to be not unnoticed but obvious and overdone.Axios attributed the aesthetic shift to the influx of transplants from south Florida (where Mar-a-Lago, Trump’s gaudy private club, is located), who are no strangers to nip-tuck tune-ups. Others theorize that going through these procedures is a calculated act of political deference to Trump’s preferred (and unnatural) beauty standards.Dr Anita Kulkarni is a plastic surgeon who practices out of DC’s West End neighborhood and specializes in postpartum body contouring. Enter her office, and you will be greeted by staff who look good, but not worked on – and that is the effect most of her clients have gone for. “Before this second Trump term, I just didn’t see a lot of patients coming in making unreasonable requests,” Kulkarni says. But since the inauguration, she has fielded half a dozen or more – not a large sample size, but enough for the surgeon to take note.She says nobody comes in asking for Mar-a-Lago face by name; the most obvious clue is when a patient with visible lip filler comes in wanting more. “I have to say: ‘I cannot put any more in there safely.’” Or they will want more cheek or jawline filler. “‘To my eye, if I put any more in there, you’re going to cross over from looking like the best version of yourself to looking like Maleficent.’ I have to say no in a way that I have never seen before.” And still patients will try to talk their way into more. But placing fresh filler over an existing layer too soon can cause lumpiness, and Kulkarni does not want to risk being known for that look.“My aesthetic doesn’t necessarily have to be your aesthetic for me to give you what you want,” she says. “But when you go outside the range of what a normal human face should look like, that’s not a place I’m willing to go.”More still might shrug their shoulders and say Mar-a-Lago face is part of society’s wider embrace of body contouring. Kris Jenner’s ageless, 70th-birthday facelift may look less garish than Laura Loomer’s balloonish attributes, but both are just as fake. It comes at a time when the American Society of Plastic Surgeons reports there were more than 28.5m minimally invasive procedures done in 2024; lip augmentation, dermal fillers and neuromodulator treatments (such as Botox) cracked the top five.Dr Troy Pittman, a plastic surgeon based in DC, says that across the country, people are more willing to talk about the work they have had done. “That’s not a bad thing,” he sys. “But in a town like DC, there is this glamming up of Washington with this new administration, so it’s become more prevalent. They’re OK with looking enhanced.”Dr Kelly Bolden is also a DC-based plastic surgeon. Most of her clients are people of color – she is the medical director of Cultura Dermatology, a practice that specializes in cosmetic treatments for deeper skin tones – and she is not seeing a boom in Mar-a-Lago face requests. But she has noticed a shift, especially among her younger clients in their 20s and 30s.View image in fullscreen“They come in and actually tell me that they like the artificial look. A couple of my patients have said those exact words to me,” Bolden says. Some of the most visible Trump officials are young, such as press secretary Karoline Leavitt and her deputy Anna Kelly (both 28, and the latter is a former pageant queen), and they’re always camera-ready. “I think most of [Trump’s] administration is on the younger side compared to traditional ones, so that’s probably a little bit of where the trend comes from.”Those who want a Mar-a-Lago face have to be able to handle needles: Bolden says it is most often achieved via shots and injectables underneath the skin. “It’s overdone filler and Botox that gives them that mask-face type of appearance.”This is not a look Bolden is known for. Sometimes, she outright denies these requests. Or she will compromise. “Usually I’ll look at them and say: ‘Let’s balance you out, let’s make it more even.’ It’s almost like just as long as they get a little bit more, it will satisfy them,” she says.After the Duchess of Sussex announced her engagement to Prince Harry in 2017, Pittman said women would bring photos of Meghan to appointments and ask for her nose. “That’s a trap,” Pittman says. “We’re not trying to make people look like clones of each other.” He would similarly talk down someone who brought in a picture of Ivanka or Melania Trump. “Whenever people come in asking for a branded look, that can lead to either very unrealistic expectations or artificial results.”Other plastic surgeons advertise Mar-a-Lago face. A practice out of Boca Raton, Florida – less than an hour away from Mar-a-Lago – calls it a procedure that “doesn’t scream surgery. Instead, it whispers refinement.” Dr Shervin Naderi, based in the DC area, described the look as “a modern aristocratic mask” in his practice’s blog.When does a patient know it’s time to ease up on the procedures? Bolden says it’s common not to; the industry term is perception blindness. “The first time someone gets filler, the majority of the time, it looks good,” she said. “Then people get used to it, and they see a wrinkle come back or some sagging, and they’re like, ‘I need more.’ They’re chasing after something without realizing it. A little bit more, a little bit more, and you can’t really see the evolution.”The aesthetics of politics have long been an uneasy topic, especially as it relates to women. Nicole Russell, a columnist at USA Today, called jokes about Mar-a-Lago face “cruel attacks” on conservative women. To others, the face has come to symbolize an allegiance to Trump and his policies. See Noem wearing full glam to an ICE raid, beach waves tumbling over her bulletproof vest. Or Leavitt at the press podium, insisting Trump’s name in Jeffrey Epstein’s emails means nothing, as she purses overlined pink lips to match her shimmery eye shadow.Men are not spared the political aesthetic shift either. Ninety-two per cent of surgeons report treating male patients, with facelifts and sculpted jawlines being top picks. Pittman told Axios his male patients want to look “younger … more virile and masculine” like Pete Hegseth, via Botox, liposuction and eyelid rejuvenation. A fitting counter to Maga’s leading women.But, just like trends, administrations ebb and flow. Mar-a-Lago face won’t last forever – literally. “Nothing in plastic surgery is permanent,” Bolden says. “Filler goes away. Most people will say you get a good eight to 10 years out of a facelift. Everything has a lifespan.” More

    • 150 Shares128 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump is pushing 50-year mortgages. Talk about short-term thinking | Arwa Mahdawi

      by

      Would you like to buy a crumbling shack for $2m? Well then, you’re in luck, because that just about sums up the state of the housing market right now. Housing, particularly in places with a decent job market, has become increasingly unaffordable in the US. That’s partly thanks to quantitative easing during the pandemic, which supercharged housing inflation. The median American home price in January was $418,000, about a 45% increase from $289,000 five years ago, per Redfin data. Wages haven’t gone up at the same rate, and housing prices compared to income have reached an all-time high.In post-pandemic America, there are three groups of people. First, there are those who own their home outright and those who bought a house before the pandemic, then refinanced during the historically low interest rates we saw in 2020 and 2021. Many of those homeowners are now sitting on large piles of equity.Then you’ve got the people who bought their first home during the pandemic, with super-low interest rates. They’re not quite as fortunate as group one, but having a 30-year-mortgage that is under the rate of inflation (currently about 3%) means they are also in a very privileged position.Finally, you’ve got group three: people who are completely and utterly screwed. Unless you’re earning big bucks, have generous parents, or want to live in the middle of nowhere, good luck buying a first home right now. Indeed, nearly a quarter of millennials say they expect to rent forever. Prices are historically high and mortgage rates, while still far lower than they have been in the past, are about 6.3%. The difference between buying a $500,000 home with a 6.3% mortgage v a 2.5% interest rate (which some lucky people got during the pandemic) is about $900 a month. And things will only get worse; Trump’s tariffs, including a 50% tariff on steel, could raise the cost of building and renovating a home.But don’t worry. You’re not going to have to rent a $700 sleeping pod (yes, these are a thing in San Francisco) for the rest of your life. Our great president is on it. Donald Trump has a plan – or perhaps more accurately, “concepts of a plan” – to fix housing affordability: 50-year mortgages. The Federal Housing Finance Agency director, Bill Pulte, who reportedly promoted this genius idea to Trump, called the proposal “a complete gamechanger”. You know what else is a complete gamechanger, Bill? Jumping in a pile of toxic waste.Even many of Trump’s allies are said to be aghast at the idea of a 50-year mortgage. This week, Politico reported that the White House was furious Pulte planted the idea in Trump’s head. Per Politico, “one of the two people familiar [with the situation] said there is more fallout from this idea than almost any other policy proposal of the second term, including from the MAGA base.” Another source told Politico: “During Trump 2.0, the last time anything got as much pushback as this was over the ‘Epstein Files’.”The problem with a 50-year mortgage, to be clear, is that it does nothing to solve the root issues. Yes, you’ll have a lower monthly payment since the timeline is longer, but it’ll take you longer to build equity and you’ll pay double the amount of interest as someone with a 30-year mortgage, according to one analysis. Fifty-year mortgages could also increase housing prices in the long run by encouraging people to buy more expensive homes.If you’re reading this from somewhere that isn’t the US, even the idea of a 30-year mortgage might seem odd. The US is an outlier when it comes to mortgages. In most countries you can only get a fixed rate for a few years before it adjusts according to current interest rates.President Franklin D Roosevelt helped usher in 30-year mortgages after the Great Depression, when about 50% of mortgages, which were then only fixed for a short term, were in default. The Roosevelt administration wanted to ensure this didn’t happen again in the future by helping people become homeowners via more predictable repayment plans with reduced risk. Trump, it would seem, fancies himself another Roosevelt. Over the weekend he floated his new housing idea with a Truth Social post titled “Great American Presidents”, which included the words “50-year mortgage” above a photo of himself and “30-year mortgage” over a photo of Roosevelt.Thirty-year mortgages have worked out very well for a lot of individual homeowners in the US. However, many experts believe they exacerbate inequality by creating a system of winners and losers. Lock in a low interest rate for 30 years and you are, to a large degree, insulated from many economic headwinds. If you’ve got a low interest rate, it’s also hard to give it up when rates are rising. That means people who might otherwise downsize will stay in place. Or they might rent out a house they would normally sell in order to keep their interest rate. Long-term fixed-rate loans help contribute to a frozen housing market, which helps erode housing affordability. A 50-year mortgage would make these issues even worse.It’s unclear whether the 50-year-mortgage idea will ever progress to more than just a social media post. However, the fact that we’re even discussing it says a lot about the short-term thinking that plagues modern politics. And it speaks volumes about Trump’s focus on flashy bandages rather than long-term solutions.You can see all the same issues, for example, in Trump’s recent plan to send Americans tariff rebate checks. “People that are against Tariffs are FOOLS!” Trump posted on Truth Social on Sunday. “A dividend of at least $2000 a person (not including high income people!) will be paid to everyone.” Like 50-year mortgages, this would be a quick fix that might give people some immediate relief while exacerbating higher prices in the long term. Trump has also brainstormed sending Americans money to help with health insurance rather than doing anything substantial to fix the US’s broken healthcare system. Turns out that electing a showman whose companies have filed for bankruptcies multiple times might not have been the best idea.Anyway, since hare-brained ideas seem to be all the rage in American politics right now, let me take the opportunity to introduce my own plan to increase housing affordability: we kick Trump out of the White House and we turn it into condos.

      Arwa Mahdawi is a Guardian columnist More

    • 188 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      I’m an American relying on food stamps. This country has turned us into lab rats

      by

      It is 10 November, and my refrigerator is almost empty.I am, in fact, hungry as I write this. It is not that I do not have food at all; it is that I do not have the inclination to eat a can of tuna for breakfast, nor do I have the time to cook the winter squash my neighbor gave me.I am one of 41 million Americans who rely on Snap to make ends meet. When I offered to write about my experience during the government shutdown, it looked like we were not going to get any food assistance at all. And then we were. And then we weren’t.For weeks, the administration has been using our precarious survival as a bargaining block. Will they eat, or won’t they?This is what life is in Mapleton, Oregon, population 527. One white-spired church, one general store, one diner, one bar, one food bank where people line up two hours before the doors open.Roughly one in six Oregonians rely on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Snap) to buy groceries, but it it worse here in the sticks. Our 22% poverty rate is double the state average, and even higher for young families: 44% of the kids in this school district live below the poverty level.I am not writing this with self pity. I do not have kids and my rent is very low, due to the generosity of friends. I understand that my version of poverty – the kind where you are down to canned tuna and raisins – is not the same as starvation. I feel fortunate to live in one of the states with a governor who has stood up to the federal government. That was heartening – especially after weeks of stress.But it still seems to me that we, America’s low-income people, have been treated like lab animals in a sick political experiment. Oh good, they’re giving us food! Oh wait, they’re not.When I say “giving us food”, it makes it sound like we do not work or do for ourselves. That is simply not true. Even with a regular allotment of Snap benefits and a handout from the food bank, it takes true ingenuity to get through the month. And while we are cooking beans from scratch, we are also working or hustling to find work.Take for instance, my cousin’s daughter Alissa, 24, who pays $1,000 a month to live in what she describes as “a roach-infested” slum in a nearby town, where it is slightly easier to find work.Her partner was a fisher but now works at a fishing supply store in order to spend more time with his family. Alissa used to be a full-time barista, but her $13.50 an hour did not make sense if it all went to daycare. She still hustles jobs in the so-called gig economy, but it is not enough. After taxes and rent, there is barely enough to cover their bills. She is reliant on Snap for their food.When I talked to her a week ago, she was stressed.“I’m really worried,” she said. “Not just about my family but the whole town. There’s not a lot of food banks to begin with and their funding was already cut earlier in the year.”The problem is that most people who get Snap benefits are like me: we were already running low on food before the end of October. We have been scrambling for weeks. And out here in rural Oregon, we make do with what is in front of us. “It’s hunting season so he’s out in his spare time,” Alissa said of her partner. They also forage for wild food.All this hunting, foraging and cooking from scratch might sound romantic, but less so when you consider she is living in a crap apartment and breaking Instacart rules by bringing her daughter on the job.“There’s too many people that simply don’t have the insight into what life is really like for the majority of us,” she said.For decades, I survived without relying on the government safety net that our tax dollars fund. But in recent years, everything has been getting harder. AI ate up most of my contract work. Competition is stiff so I cannot raise my rates – I make the same amount per hour that I did five years ago, but it has about half the buying power. I began racking up credit card debt to pay my bills.Last fall, I was awarded $250 in Snap benefits. It was not enough to survive the month. Then my Snap benefits were reduced, first because I found meager part-time work and then again for unknown reasons. Meanwhile, grocery prices soared.I quit being choosy at the food bank, and started picking up stuff I would not normally eat – AKA stockpiling food. Off-brand mac and cheese, a can of peaches. The thing about food insecurity is that you are always worrying. You are always doing mental math, figuring out how to substitute key ingredients or spruce up the pot of lentils you have been eating all week.And then there’s shame. At first, I refused to go to the food bank because I worried I would run into someone I knew. Now I realize the fallacy of that: if I run into someone at the food bank, it’s because we’re in the same boat – or they are there to help. I don’t feel shame any more. I feel solidarity and anger.I am angry there are so many of us. That I cannot make a living from hard work at a job I am good at. That I have been writing about my own food insecurity for 15 years.I am angry that I have worked so hard to get here, and I am angry for all the people who have had it worse. The furloughed workers who have not been paid. My friend Kevin who is unable to work because an insurance agency has denied him back surgery for an injury he got on the job. My friend Mel, who has been working for a hotel chain for seven years, and lost her Snap and healthcare assistance because she got a minuscule raise. All the people with toothaches they cannot treat, all of us with overdue electric bills.Every month the lines are longer at our food bank while rich people scheme ways to avoid taxes and blame us for the problems their policies create. Now it looks like some Democrats at the federal level are willing to play nice with the Republicans for political gain – at the expense of essential healthcare subsidies for the working poor and middle class? That doesn’t strike me as moral, either.I am not alone in my anger. I am part of a rising tide.“The amount of propaganda and gaslighting the government has been doing is sickening,” Alissa said. “Any amount of either is a sign of a failed system in my book. I mean truly imagine having to trick someone into agreeing with you because you knew they’d be against your policies if you were upfront.”She is part of a family group chat where they discuss health, parenting, and politics. “My Maga grandma definitely thinks I’m a dumb liberal, even though I’m not a liberal,” she said with a laugh. “What more people need to understand is it’s never me versus you, Democrat versus Republican, or Maga versus lib. It’s the people versus exploitation.”Here is your report from rural America: the stress, frustration and disgust are off the charts. Conspiracy theories swirl and some don’t sound that crazy to me. Two I heard this week: either they want to push people to rebel so they can invoke the Insurrection Act, or they want us all so broken that we do not have the energy to defend our rights, or even be there for one other.It’s hard to speak up when your teeth hurt. It’s hard to stand up when you are hungry. It’s hard to show up when you can’t afford gas. More

    • 138 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Snap workers say Trump administration is ‘using country’s poorest as pawns’

      by

      When Stacy Smith, a government worker, showed up to work last Monday – the first working day after food benefits lapsed, amid the ongoing federal shutdown – she found a long line outside her office door. Elderly and disabled individuals desperately wanted answers.Some had gone to buy groceries, not realizing that their usual benefits were unavailable.They quickly discovered that Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Snap) payments had been paused, after the Trump administration said it would not pay benefits because of the shutdown – crushing the largest anti-hunger program in the US.“I had a client that came in and said they were afraid they were going to have to start eating cat food again, because without Snap benefits, that’s all they can afford, because they’re on a fixed income,” said Smith, president of American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Local 2882, who works as an eligibility technician for assistance programs including Snap in Providence, Rhode Island.“Those are the things that I leave my job, and I go home, and that’s what I’m thinking about,” she said.Nearly 42 million Americans rely on Snap. With benefits paused for the first time in the program’s history, workers who provide assistance to Snap recipients expressed stark fears over how the move will affect low-income families and individuals. Across the country, food banks have been scrambling to keep up with surges in demand.Following two court rulings, the Trump administration said it would only provide partial funding to Snap. Funding for the program lapsed on 1 November.Snap payments continue to be contested in the courts. On Friday, the Trump administration appealed to the supreme court against a lower court’s order compelling it to make the full aid payments. Its appeal was granted, temporarily, in an emergency ruling.A Boston-based federal appeals court late on Sunday then ruled the benefits must be paid for November. But the Trump administration was expected to appeal the ruling, which was not expected to have immediate effect after the supreme court ruling, leaving the current status of the Snap program itself uncertain.As the Trump administration fights against funding Snap, Smith said low-income families were scared. With the holidays approaching and schools due to close, breakfast and lunch meals provided during term time will not be available for their children.View image in fullscreen“Clients are coming in. They want to know when this is going to end. And we don’t have an answer for them,” said Smith. “It’s hard to look someone in the face who’s telling you they can’t feed their family, and be able to try to guide them to other avenues to try to get some food for their household. We have community food banks, and we have food pantries, and they’re they’re already maxed out.”Snap is funded by the federal government, but administered by state and local governments, already facing cuts by the Trump administration. “This is more chaos for states and their ability to manage all these other big program issues that they have, and they’re throwing all their resources in,” said a former USDA food and nutrition service employee, who requested to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation, as they currently work for federal contractors. “There’s a real commitment by the states to get these benefits out there. This is a lifeline for the 42 million people that get the program. I see that commitment from them, but this really is unprecedented.”As the government shutdown drags on, Snap recipients have been reaching out to state offices in desperation for answers and relief.“At this point we have no more information, really, than they have in the news currently,” said Misha Dancing Waters, a member of American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Local 720, who also works as an economic support specialist since the last nine years in Dane county, Wisconsin. “For Wisconsin, we haven’t even gotten partial Snap funding. We haven’t gotten anything so far.View image in fullscreen“We’re giving out a lot of resources, and they’re really just hitting all of those food pantries. Places where there’s anything to help are getting hit so hard that they just really can’t meet the need.”Pausing the scheme was “really punitive”, added Waters. “It’s another way to get people off of the benefit … It’s really scary times. There’s so many things up in the air. People really don’t have any way to plan or prepare.”Contacted for comment, the US Department of Agriculture – which oversees Snap benefits – pointed to a memo, which said that “maximum allotments” for households were being reduced to 50% during November “due to the limited availability of Federal funding” and “orders from two courts”.Should the shutdown persist, and Snap funding fail to be restored, Waters expressed fear things will get worse very quickly.“I think the next month we’re going to see things get drastically more dire if we don’t get this shutdown turned around and get our situation with health insurance and food care fixed. People need those basic things just to survive,” she said. “We are using our country’s poorest and most vulnerable as pawns in a political game, and that’s not acceptable on any level. It’s not OK for us to be denying people basic things like food and medical care.” More

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      US agriculture department tells states to ‘undo’ Snap benefits for families in need

      by

      The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) is directing states to “immediately undo” any steps that have been taken to send out full food aid benefits to low-income Americans, following a supreme court order on Friday that temporarily halted a lower court order requiring those payments.The USDA’s directive, issued in a memo on Saturday, followed a supreme court order granting the Trump administration’s emergency request to pause an order for the USDA to provide full Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Snap) benefits during the ongoing federal government shutdown, which is now in its 40th day.That lower court ruling, issued on Thursday, ordered the Trump administration to fully fund the Snap program for November by Friday, rather than issuing only partial benefits. The ruling led to some of the roughly 42 million Americans enrolled in Snap – commonly known as food stamps – to begin receiving their full benefits on Friday from the states, which issue the payments of federal dollars.But on Friday night, the program was thrown into chaos again when the supreme courtagreed to temporarily pause the order to allow an appeals court to review the Trump administration’s appeal.In response to the supreme court’s decision, the USDA, which delivers the money to the states, issued its directive that any payments that had been made under the prior orders are considered “unauthorized”.“To the extent States sent full SNAP payment files for November 2025, this was unauthorized,” Patrick Penn, the deputy undersecretary of agriculture, wrote to state Snap directors. “Accordingly, States must immediately undo any steps taken to issue full SNAP benefits for November 2025.”The memo warned: “Failure to comply with this memorandum may results in USDA taking various actions, including cancellation of the Federal share of State administration costs and holding States liable for any overissuances that result from the noncompliance.”As the Associated Press reports, it remains unclear if the directive applies to states using their some of their own funds to sustain the program, or just to ones relying entirely on federal money. The USDA did not immediately respond to a request for clarification from the AP.Lisa Murkowski, a Republican senator for Alaska, said it would be “shocking” if the order applied to states using their own money to support the program.“It’s one thing if the federal government is going to continue its level of appeal through the courts to say, ‘No, this can’t be done,’” Murkowski told the AP. “But when you are telling the states that have said this is a significant enough issue in our state, we’re going to find resources, backfill or front load, whatever term you want, to help our people, those states should not be penalized.”On Sunday several state leaders criticized the memo.Wisconsin’s Democratic governor, Tony Evers, refused to abide by the directive.“No,” Evers said in a statement responding to the memo. “Pursuant to and consistent with an active court order, Wisconsin legally loaded benefits to cards, ensuring nearly 700,000 Wisconsinites, including nearly 270,000 kids, had access to basic food and groceries.”He added that the Trump administration had “assured Wisconsin and other states that they were actively working to implement full SNAP benefits for November and would ‘complete the processes necessary to make funds available”, adding that “they have failed to do so to date.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“Our administration is actively in court fighting against the Trump administration’s efforts to yank food assistance away from Wisconsin’s kids, families and seniors and we are eager for the court to resolve this issue by directing the Trump administration to comply with court orders and provide the certainty to the many Wisconsin families and businesses who rely on FoodShare,” Evers said.Maura Healey, the Democratic governor of Massachusetts, also condemned the directive in a statement on Sunday, saying: “If President Trump wants to penalize states for preventing Americans from going hungry, we will see him in court.”“Massachusetts residents with funds on their cards should continue to spend it on food” she said. “These funds were processed in accordance with guidance we received from the Trump Administration and a lower court order, and they were processed before the Supreme Court order on Friday night.”“President Trump should be focusing on reopening the government that he controls instead of repeatedly fighting to take away food from American families,” she added.Amy Klobuchar, a Democratic senator for Minnesota, also criticized the memo, saying that “cruelty is the point”, adding: “It is their choice to do this.”Associated Press and Reuters contributed reporting More

    • 175 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Snap cuts are leaving one in eight Americans hungry. Here’s how you can help

      by

      As the US government shutdown continues, nearly 42 million people face a threat to their food supply. Funding for the Snap program – commonly known as food stamps – expired on Saturday, leaving recipients’ fate uncertain. “It comes down to paying for my medications and my bills or buying food for myself and for my animals,” a Missouri veteran told the Guardian. A California resident described being “housebound because I need a couple of spinal cord surgeries so this is really gonna hurt me because I cannot work, and thereby earn money to put food on the table”.Last week, a judge blocked the Trump administration from suspending benefits entirely. But on Monday, the administration said it would provide those enrolled in the program with only half of what they usually receive. Now, food banks are struggling under the weight of “unprecedented demand”, said Linda Nageotte, president and chief operating officer of Feeding America, a network of food banks across the US. “One in eight people in our country right now don’t have enough to eat, and if you’re one of the seven who does, it’s time for you to activate.”If you are directly affected by the Snap cuts, you can find a nearby food bank here. Otherwise, here’s how you can lend a hand.Donate to food programsThanks to relationships with retailers, farmers and other food industry sources, “the cost per pound for food when a food bank is sourcing it is really, really, really low,” Nageotte said. “We can provide far, far more meals’ worth of food with $1 than you could if you took that same dollar and went to the grocery store.”With that in mind, you can donate funds to larger organizations such as Feeding America or New York City’s City Harvest, or to a local site. In the US, you can find a food bank near you via Feeding America, via the website FoodFinder, or via a quick Google search for food assistance programs in your area. Another option is FindHelp.org, which identifies a huge number of aid programs, including food assistance.You can also host your own food drive. Check in with a local bank to learn what is most needed and then encourage friends, family or co-workers to donate canned goods and other non-perishable items. Or you can help at a food bank near you by volunteering.“We need donations of money. We need donations of food. We need people who can volunteer and help us sort and pack boxes so that they can quickly be distributed to neighbors who need them. And we need folks who want to lift their voice and advocate” for a reopening of the government and full Snap funding, Nageotte said.Mutual aid programs also offer support – the Mutual Aid Hub is a good place to start. Or you can contribute to local community fridges (here are some examples in New York, Chicago, Atlanta and Los Angeles), which provide free food for neighborhoods.Support your neighbors directlyPerhaps there’s someone in your area who needs a hand paying for food or going to the grocery store. If so, you might offer to be a “grocery buddy” who goes shopping with a neighbor, or pitches in needed funds or a gift card. The phenomenon has grown during the shutdown, with people posting in neighborhood forums and Facebook groups to volunteer, CNN reports.You might also see whether your local school has a “backpack” meal program that helps ensure kids can eat outside school hours. Or you could organize and schedule a Meal Train, building a team of people to ensure a friend is getting regular meals. And if you enjoy Italian food, neighborhood ties, or Garfield the cat, you might consider becoming a volunteer chef in a lasagne-based program aiming to build close-knit communities.View image in fullscreenA bit of inspirationFaced with neighbors in need, people across the US are taking action.In the San Francisco Bay Area, restaurants are offering free meals; a pasta maker is giving free food to anyone who uses the not-so-secret code word. A Minneapolis breakfast spot is giving out pancakes to anyone who wants them, while a museum is providing free admission to Snap recipients, among many similar efforts across the city. Outside Boston, restaurants are banding together to donate a portion of their gift card sales to a food-recovery non-profit. In Los Angeles, Jimmy Kimmel has opened a food donation center.Others are busy contacting their representatives, demanding an end to the shutdown and the hunger crisis. Feeding America and 5Calls offer templates to help you do the same.“I’ve been in this work for over 30 years, and if there is one thing that is true when there is a crisis, it is that the best of humanity shows up in full force,” Nageotte said. More

    • 200 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Pandemic childcare funding is running out across the US: ‘The whole system is beginning to implode’

      by

      On an early fall day, toddlers played at Westwood Academy, a highly rated Denver childcare center serving children aged six weeks to five years. The room glowed with natural wood and light while preschoolers settled onto colorful floor circles to hear a book read aloud. “Where’s your circle?” one of the children asked the teacher.Westwood is located in west Denver, a lower-income part of the city; median family income in the surrounding area is less than $43,000 a year, according to census data.It is precisely because Westwood owner RB Fast serves this population that she and her peers are struggling to make the budgetary math work. The American childcare system, primarily a market-based, pay-to-play system, has always had inequities, but those inequities are growing ever sharper as federal pandemic-era funding, a boon to many families, has run out across the nation. Combine that with flat federal funding and for-profit childcare catering to affluent families, and, as Fast said, childcare “has become a service for high-income families, not low-income families”.In January, Denver joined many other Colorado counties in freezing enrollment for the state’s childcare subsidy program known as the Colorado Child Care Assistance Program (CCCAP). Given the high percentage of Westwood families using subsidies – Fast said that when full, the center had two-thirds of children receiving CCCAP – the freeze has meant would-be enrollees cannot afford a slot. So when a family moves away, there is no one able to replace them, despite high demand.As a result, Westwood has seven unfilled spots in its 16-slot preschool classroom. “I have slots available, and I could serve families tomorrow,” Fast said, “if there were subsidies.” The lack of public aid can also start a vicious cycle: when spaces are unfilled, revenue drops, and the bottom line falls apart for the whole program. If the CCCAP freeze continues indefinitely, Westwood’s future is uncertain.Programs serving lower-income families commonly struggle to maintain stable operations, often relying on meager public subsidies available in each state through the federal Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG). Even though these subsidies are inadequate – and nationally, only one in seven eligible families receive them due to underfunding – they can be a financial lifeline. During the Covid-19 pandemic, the federal government surged money to the states, and that money was used to stabilize program operations and provide financial relief to families.Colorado, for instance, gave out more than $250m of such grants from 2021 to 2023, nearly double its current annual CCDBG allocation. Researchers from the Colorado Evaluation and Action Lab at the University of Denver found that the stabilization grants helped to keep programs open while allowing them to raise staff wages and reduce fees for parents. That was also the case nationally in states from Alabama to Alaska.When the pandemic funding began to dry up in September 2023, the impacts predictably fell on lower-income families and communities of color with less wealth or ability to navigate the renewed scarcity. However, the funds’ expiration did not occur all at once; many states distributed remaining money for months if not years after, and about a dozen have used their own dollars to extend the stabilization funding.Now, as the country wrestles with rising costs of living and economic uncertainty, pressures are again beginning to spike. No significant increase in CCDBG appears to be on the horizon, as budget bills moving through Congress hold federal funding largely flat.Within this context, Philip Fisher, director of the Stanford Center on Early Childhood, noted that the center’s ongoing survey of families has begun seeing some of the highest rates of reported hardship since they began tracking in 2020. “The disproportionate impacts have been present for a long time, and they’re being exacerbated by the current circumstances,” Fisher explained, adding that with hardship rising even among families with young children in the middle- and upper-income brackets, “it becomes clear that the whole system is beginning to implode”.The mother of a five-month-old, Denver resident Iyanah French went to apply for CCCAP when her child was born but was told the freeze meant she couldn’t even be placed on a waitlist. She found the experience “overwhelming”, adding that “you have to work in this world”. She eventually found a slot thanks to the non-profit supportive housing complex in which she lives.Even within low-income populations, childcare scarcity can land unevenly. Colorado state representative Lorena Garcia is also executive director of the non-profit Colorado Statewide Parent Coalition. She noted that “English-speaking families are able to get information a little bit faster about what’s happening, so they can start looking for other options. But non-English-speaking families get their information a little bit later.”Colorado parents aren’t the only ones feeling pinched by post-pandemic changes.As of 1 August, New Jersey froze enrollment in its childcare assistance program, citing a $30m budget shortfall. The state also told already-enrolled families to expect an increase in their monthly co-pays. Other states, including Arizona and Virginia, have not enacted freezes but have subsidy waitlists in the thousands. And in many states, even families able to wrangle a voucher face decreasing options for using them: childcare programs in places like Indiana and North Carolina have begun to close in significant numbers due to harsh economics and inadequate support, including the only licensed program on the latter state’s Hatteras Island.Experts and advocates worry that the Republican budget-reconciliation bill passed this summer will worsen these trends. Melissa Boteach, chief policy officer at the non-profit Zero to Three, explained that Medicaid and Snap cuts will force state legislatures to use more scarce state dollars that could otherwise go to childcare. Both low-income families and childcare educators – many of whom are low-income themselves, due to the sector’s notoriously low compensation – will struggle with the personal impact of the cuts. Boteach said: “So on three fronts, even though the words ‘Child Care and Development Block Grant’ were not said in the One Big, Beautiful Bill, there’s going to be a lot of [childcare] pain, particularly for lower-income families and families of color, and families in rural areas.”Still, there is a seeming paradox: despite the childcare sector’s myriad struggles, the total number of childcare programs has been modestly increasing in recent years. While there is no comprehensive data for 2025, the non-profit Child Care Aware of America reports from surveys of 40 states that the number of licensed centers nationally increased by more than 4,000 from 2022 to 2024. The increase is likely driven by growth among childcare programs that serve more affluent clienteles. For instance, Heather Tritten, president and CEO of the Colorado Children’s Campaign, a statewide non-profit, says that Colorado has also seen a small increase in licensed slots in the past year. Yet, Tritten questioned, with regards to equitable access: “Are they the right slots?” She added: “I think there’s sort of a dual economy when it comes to childcare: there’s the childcare that’s available for people who can afford childcare. And then there’s the childcare that is probably not available to people who are less able to afford it.”Many of the experts interviewed for this story offered that the solution to equitable childcare access is not merely better funding for subsidy programs, but a transformed system that eliminates the two-tier distinctions altogether. Ideally, Garcia said, “our childcare system wouldn’t be a private business model. It would be a public good, and we would take lessons from K-12 so that we’re not overpromising and underfunding”, and “we would design the system on a needs-based model and not a profit-based model”.There are indeed vast differences in how childcare and K-12 education are funded in the US, despite sharing many of the same features in terms of shaping children’s learning, supporting parents’ ability to work and serving as community infrastructure. The average per-child funding in K-12 education is more than $17,000, while it is less than $2,000 for early care and education. Shifting toward a more comprehensive childcare system could thus enhance social equality in a deeper sense: Tritten of the Colorado Children’s Campaign concluded: “It would be great to figure out how to have this conversation in a way that isn’t about just the haves and the have-nots, but about all children and the needs of all children. Because it doesn’t matter how much money your parents have, you still have the same needs in terms of what you need from birth until that first day of kindergarten to ensure that you’re ready for school.”This article was produced in partnership with New America’s Better Life Lab More