The Trump administration said on Monday that it would continue to seek a block of an order to pay full SNAP benefits for November in the midst of a federal government shutdown.
A Rhode Island court issued the order last week after President Donald Trump agreed to pay partial benefits to SNAP recipients using existing funding, but said that full benefits would not be paid because the funding was not yet approved by Congress.
A Boston appeals court twice ruled that it would not stay the lower court ruling while the Supreme Court considered the case.
Besides the issue of whether a court can rule that payments be made in the absence of funding by Congress, the Trump administration also argued that the ruling violated a SCOTUS decision about lower courts being able to issue nationwide injunctions.
The Supreme Court temporarily stayed the order while the White House decided whether to continue to seek a block on the lower court decision.
A supplemental brief is being filed today, and plaintiffs were ordered to respond by Tuesday morning.
Over the weekend, the Trump administration also sent a memo to states that unilaterally said they would pay the full SNAP benefit amount to recipients, telling them they had to "undo" the payments.
A judge in Massachusetts quickly blocked that memo, however.
To me, it seems like a lot of to-do over nothing. When the shutdown ends, which it looks like will happen this week, full benefits will be paid.
It seems like a lot of court activity over a few days of delay, and I'm not sure why that's a hill Trump wants to die on.
The Senate finally advanced a spending bill on Sunday after working through the weekend, and the terms seem pretty favorable to Republicans, which means it will likely pass in the House as well.
The bill funds the government through January, but funds SNAP benefits through most of 2026.
It also guarantees a vote on extending ACA subsidies for an additional year, but did not approve the subsidies yet.
The end of the shutdown also seems likely to alleviate shortages at food banks and other issues stemming from a lack of payments to lower-income individuals.
The Supreme Court is hearing a landmark case on President Trump's tariff powers, and it's entirely possible that justices appointed by Trump could prove to be a major problem.
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Trump's use of an emergency law to enact his sweeping "Liberation Day" tariffs, which have been the source of major controversy and several serious lawsuits.
So far, justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett seem to be the most skeptical about Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which is bad news for Trump.
The Supreme Court has a 6-4 conservative majority, which Trump is banking on to score easy victories. However, with two conservative justices seemingly wavering, this could lead to a decision that isn't in Trump's favor.
Should the Supreme Court declare that the Trump administration's tariff policy is illegitimate, it will completely knock down a cornerstone of Trump's economic policy.
The International Emergency Economic Powers Act gives the president broad economic powers in the event of a national emergency tied to foreign threats. Trump has cited the trade deficit as such an emergency to impose tariffs via executive order earlier this year.
However, lawsuits filed by Democrats against Trump's declaration have claimed that since the words "tariffs" or "taxes" do not appear in the text of the IEEPA, Trump's actions are unlawful.
The Supreme Court is considering the power to "regulate importation" during a national emergency, which would certainly seem to include tariffs, which are essentially a fee on any imported goods.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett pressed U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer by asking, "Can you point to any other place in the code or any other time in history where that phrase — together with ‘regulate importation’ — has been used to confer tariff-imposing authority?"
Justice Neil Gorsuch also inquired, "What would prohibit Congress from abdicating all responsibility to regulate foreign commerce or declare war to the president?"
Of course, the Trump administration has been adamant that while tariffs may seem like taxes, they are legally separate concepts that should settle any concerns about the separation of powers.
The Supreme Court's leftist justices have already made it clear that they do not support Trump's interpretation of the IEEPA, which means that this will be a 6-4 decision, in the best-case scenario.
This means that the Trump administration must secure both Barrett's and Gorsuch's votes to avoid a devastating defeat that will undermine Trump's economic agenda.
Court observers have suggested that a Trump victory is still very much in play, but there is growing concern that Gorsuch or Barrett, both appointed by Trump in his 1st term, could flip and join the left. That would be an unparalleled disaster for Trump, who is in bad need of a win.
A magistrate judge overseeing the indictment against former FBI Director James Comey has been openly hostile to the Trump administration, and that signals serious trouble ahead.
The judge, William Fitzpatrick, accused Trump's Department of Justice of pursuing a “indict first, investigate later” strategy. It's an absurd claim considering that the Trump administration has been plotting to hold Comey accountable for years since his false testimony to Congress.
Judge Fitzpatrick also ordered the government to disclose a raft of documents from search warrants and grand jury proceedings in another move that suggests that he is skeptical of the case against Comey.
For Republicans, this news suggests that there is yet another exhausting court battle ahead for the Trump administration.
Comey has pleaded “not guilty” to charges that he made a false statement to Congress and obstructed justice, but now he has a chance of beating the case thanks to an activist judge who appears to have an anti-Trump bias.
The Department of Justice has hit back at Fitzpatrick in a filing stating that he had exceeded the "scope of the Magistrate Judge’s delegated authority and was entered without the necessary findings that the defendant has shown particularized and factually based grounds exist for disclosure and that the need for disclosure outweighs the long-established public interest in grand jury secrecy."
Fitzpatrick's order demands every document stretching back years, suggesting that Fitzpatrick believes the case is illegitimate and is searching for any technical flaws that could spring Comey free.
Comey's lawyers have also been attacking the case, with lead attorney Patrick Fitzgerald alleging that the prosecution is “vindictive” and “selective."
Comey's team also claims that acting United States attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia Lindsey Halligan was appointed illegitimately as there supposedly cannot be two subsequent acting attorneys in a district.
The Department of Justice responded to this saying, "Even were Ms. Halligan’s appointment invalid, the motions to dismiss should be denied. While Defendants challenge Ms. Halligan’s appointment as interim US Attorney, the actions they challenge do not hinge on her validly holding that particular office."
This case has quickly devolved into a legal mess, and conservatives hoping to see Comey face justice quickly are going to be sorely disappointed.
Leftist bureaucrats like Comey have evaded justice for years, both thanks to former President Joe Biden and leftist judges who have fought any efforts to bring charges.
Another factor at play is the GOP in the Senate, which has refused to take measures to undermine Democratic obstruction efforts against Trump's nominees. The Senate GOP could settle any issues of Halligan's legitimacy if they made rule changes that would end the Democrat blockade.
It seems highly likely that this case will take some time to prosecute and will likely end up in a higher court where one activist judge can't skew things.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the Trump administration can enforce a policy requiring people to list their biological sex on passports, undoing a Biden-era rule that allowed people to self-select their gender or write X in the space where gender should be listed.
Americans will now have to select "male" or "female" on their passport application, corresponding to their sex assigned at birth.
Trump had made an emergency request to the court to stay a lower court order that would have allowed people to select their gender on a passport based on how they "identify."
“Displaying passport holders’ sex at birth no more offends equal protection principles than displaying their country of birth—in both cases, the Government is merely attesting to a historical fact without subjecting anyone to differential treatment,” the court said in its order.
Attorney General Pam Bondi celebrated securing “our 24th victory at the Supreme Court’s emergency docket” in a post to X.
“Today’s stay allows the government to require citizens to list their biological sex on their passport,” she continued. “In other words: there are two sexes, and our attorneys will continue fighting for that simple truth.”
The vote was 6-3 on the ruling, with the court's liberal-leaning judges dissenting on the ruling.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote the dissent, saying in part, “This Court has once again paved the way for the immediate infliction of injury without adequate (or, really, any) justification. Because I cannot acquiesce to this pointless but painful perversion of our equitable discretion, I respectfully dissent.”
The case came about because President Donald Trump signed an executive order on his first day in office requiring in part that passports reflect biological sex.
In response, several transgender-identifying people sued to block the order, arguing that the rule violates their right to equal protection under the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment, as well as a federal law called the Administrative Procedure Act.
A federal judge in Massachusetts ruled against Trump, and the appeals court declined to block the lower court ruling.
The Supreme Court said in its ruling that Trump was likely to succeed on the merits of the case, which was why they decided to block the lower court's order.
In addition, the Supreme Court said, “And the District Court’s grant of class-wide relief enjoins enforcement of an Executive Branch policy with foreign affairs implications concerning a Government document. In light of the foregoing, the Government will suffer a form of irreparable injury absent a stay."
Allowing people to choose a gender different from their biological sex could have national security implications and lead to confusion about people's identities. It's clear that this ruling was needed, and will hopefully remain the law of the land.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials said Wednesday that an Illinois lawmaker lied when he accused agents of targeting a preschool teacher and entering a daycare center to arrest her.
Rep. Mike Quigley (D) posted on X that the agents "abducted a preschool teacher without a warrant — in front of children."
But the Department of Homeland Security quickly called Quigley out and said that the situation was quite different than how Quigley and other officials portrayed it.
Congressman, you are deliberately misrepresenting the facts.
ICE law enforcement did NOT target a daycare and were only at this location because the female illegal alien fled inside.
Here is the real story:
Officers attempted to conduct a targeted traffic stop of this female… https://t.co/a5BdcbhnwC
— Homeland Security (@DHSgov) November 5, 2025
"Congressman, you are deliberately misrepresenting the facts," the agency rebutted. "ICE law enforcement did NOT target a daycare and were only at this location because the female illegal alien fled inside."
The real story, DHS posted, was that agents tried to pull over a car containing a female illegal immigrant from Colombia, but the male driver would not stop.
After a chase, he drove the car into a shopping center and both the male and female fled into the daycare center, barricading themselves in the vestibule.
She was arrested in the vestibule, not inside the daycare center, DHS said. It was the Colombian immigrant who put the children and adults inside the daycare at risk, not the ICE agents.
But of course, the narrative put forth by Quigley dovetails exactly with what they want to believe about ICE's activities: that ICE agents are targeting innocent people and putting people at risk with their brutal and violent raids.
It seems like rumors abounded when passersby or shoppers saw the raid happen, and Quigley was quite content to spread the disinformation without bothering to verify any facts.
ICE further said that the woman who was arrested lied about her identity and claimed not to know the man driving her car during the traffic stop and chase.
According to her, she picked up a perfect stranger at the bus stop and let him drive her car. This scenario is highly unlikely, of course.
But the left is so desperate to make ICE the bad guys that the truth really doesn't matter at all.
This kind of hateful misinformation is going to get ICE agents killed, but that will only make partisans like Quigley even happier, I'm afraid.
CNN lefty Van Jones is among those raising alarm about Zohran Mamdani's "instant character switch" after winning the New York City mayoral race, as evidenced by his angry victory speech Tuesday night.
“New York, tonight you have delivered a mandate for change, a mandate for a new kind of politics, a mandate for a city that we can afford and a mandate for a government that delivers exactly that,” he started out.
He quickly devolved into taunting President Donald Trump and claiming to have accomplished something momentous, rather than being yet another "Democrat" (or at least posing as one) to win a race in the most liberal city in America.
“So Donald Trump, since I know you’re watching, I have four words for you: Turn the volume up,” Mamdani said.
“My friends, we have toppled a political dynasty,” he continued.
Van Jones said of the speech, “I think he missed an opportunity. I think the Mamdani that we saw in the campaign trail, who was a lot more calm, who was a lot warmer, who was a lot more embracing, was not present in that speech."
“I think his tone was sharp. I think he was using the microphone in a way that he was almost yelling. That’s not the Mamdani that we’ve seen on Tiktok and the great interviews and stuff like that," he went on. “I felt like it was a little bit of a character switch here."
Mamdani will be NYC's first Muslim, first South Asian and first socialist mayor--all at the young age of 34.
He actually carried 50.4% of the vote, so even if all of Republican Curtis Sliwa's votes had gone to independent challenger Andrew Cuomo, it would not have been enough.
“I wish Andrew Cuomo only the best in his private life but that [will be] the final time I utter his name," Mamdani said.
Over 2 million New Yorkers voted in the election, the highest turnout since 1969.
Trump has threatened to withhold funds from New York if Mamdani won the election, saying that it would be a "waste" of money because socialism would fail.
"…AND SO IT BEGINS!” Trump posted on Truth Social as the speech went on.
The Trump Organization still does a lot of business in New York City, so it remains to be seen what will happen with Trump Tower and other buildings there.
He long ago moved his base of operations to Florida where the weather is better and taxes much lower.
The city already taxes business owners onerously for every single day they do business there, and a reported $100 million-plus in real estate is in the process of moving out as people grow fearful of Mamdani's policies.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Tuesday on CNBC's "Squawk Box" that even a Supreme Court loss of the tariff case before it doesn't mean the end of tariffs for President Donald Trump.
Oral arguments are scheduled for Wednesday, and the case has been fast-tracked because of the urgency surrounding the situation.
Bessent said he was confident Trump will prevail in the case, which challenges his authority to impose tariffs without an act of Congress.
But even if Trump loses, Bessent said, there are still lots of options for using other authorities to get the job done.
“There are lots of other authorities that can be used, but IEEPA is by far the cleanest, and it gives the U.S. and the president the most negotiating authority,” he said. “The others are more cumbersome, but they can be effective.”
Bessent went on to detail some of the options.
Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 uses national security to justify tariffs, while Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 regulates unfair trading practices.
Both of these options would only allow the president to impose tariffs during a state of emergency, however. While Trump has declared a state of emergency over the border and crime in some cities, I don't see how these would translate to the tariff situation.
Trump is somehow convinced that income from tariffs is going to pay off our national debt and make us solvent again, but I really don't see this happening either. He called the case "life or death" for the U.S. on Tuesday just ahead of the arguments in the case.
Bessent believes that the Supreme Court will be reluctant to "interfere" with tariffs when they are told the policy is a "signature" one for the president.
“This is very important tomorrow, and SCOTUS is going to hear this,” Bessent said. “This is a signature policy for the president, and traditionally, SCOTUS has been loath to interfere with these signature policies.”
This could be true, but if the law states it isn't under Trump's purview to impose tariffs, it probably won't matter whether it's a "signature" policy or not.
Trump has used tariffs and the threat of tariffs to get more favorable terms with U.S. trading partners after years of the U.S. letting other nations take advantage of its relative wealth and status.
But that wealth and status are more in doubt than ever with $38 trillion in debt hanging over our heads. If Trump can somehow turn that around, he will be one of the greatest presidents in history.
President Donald Trump said the prospect of the U.S. going to war with Venezuela is unlikely, but was unapologetic about the strikes he has authorized against Venezuelan boats carrying drugs into the country and said that Nicholas Maduro's days as president are numbered.
"I doubt it, I don't think so," Trump said to "60 Minutes," host Norah O’Donnell when asked about whether the repositioning of the USS Gerald R. Ford to the Caribbean meant war with Venezuela.
"But they've been treating us very badly, not only on drugs," he continued.
Trump then bemoaned the way Venezuela seemingly flooded the U.S. with its criminals and mentally ill people during Joe Biden's presidency when the borders were thrown pretty much wide open.
"They've dumped hundreds of thousands of people into a country that… we didn't want – people from prisons," Trump said. "They emptied their prisons into our country. They also, if you take a look, they emptied their mental institutions and their insane asylum into the United States of America because Joe Biden was the worst president in the history of our country."
O'Donnell then asked Trump whether the strikes are more about stopping the flow of drugs into the U.S. or removing Maduro.
"To me, that would be almost number one because we have other countries like Mexico has been very bad to us in terms of drugs. Okay. Very bad," he said. "We have a closed border right now… So think of this: zero people coming into our country through our southern border."
O'Donnell also asked Trump whether Maduro's days as president were numbers, and he said. "I would say yeah. I think so, yeah."
On the question of whether Trump planned land strikes on Venezuela, he said "I’m not saying it’s true or untrue."
He added that he wasn't going to give a reporter information about any plans for military strikes.
There have been rumors about land strikes on Venezuela, which Trump said Friday were not on the table.
Secretary of War Pete Hegseth was asked on Saturday whether land strikes were planned, but he also refused to discuss it.
"Appreciate the question. But, of course, we would not share any amount of operational details about what may or may not happen," Hegseth said.
It's really good to see a president do something about the flow of drugs into the country, no matter what anyone in the media thinks about it.
President Donald Trump is taking steps to address the slaughter of Christians in Nigeria, and he's not pulling punches.
Trump has officially designated Nigeria as a "country of particular concern" and directed the House Appropriations Committee “to immediately look into this matter,” while being clear that the U.S. will not stand by idly while Christians are slaughtered.
Essentially, the Nigerian government is staring down the barrel of a gun as it has been rumored that Trump is considering military measures to crush Nigeria's radical Islamic terrorist groups.
Trump's decision seems to have been spurred by a letter from Rep. Riley Moore (R-WV), who called on Trump to take “immediate action to address the systematic persecution and slaughter of Christians in Nigeria."
This is the kind of foreign policy that Americans want to see out of the Trump administration. No more nation-building in the Middle East, just precise and surgical application of military force to decapitate terrorist groups.
Trump made an announcement on Friday via Truth Social where he emphatically proclaimed that, "Christianity is facing an existential threat in Nigeria. Thousands of Christians are being killed. Radical Islamists are responsible for this mass slaughter. I am hereby making Nigeria a “COUNTRY OF PARTICULAR CONCERN” — But that is the least of it. When Christians, or any such group, is slaughtered like is happening in Nigeria (3,100 versus 4,476 Worldwide), something must be done!"
One can't help but wonder if the former Biden administration would have cared about the slaughter of Christians in a nation that doesn't hold strong geopolitical relevance.
Trump continued in his post by saying, "I am asking Congressman Riley Moore, together with Chairman Tom Cole and the House Appropriations Committee, to immediately look into this matter, and report back to me. The United States cannot stand by while such atrocities are happening in Nigeria, and numerous other Countries. We stand ready, willing, and able to save our Great Christian population around the World!"
According to Moore's letter to Trump, over 7,000 Christians have been killed in Nigeria in 2025 alone, with hundreds more kidnapped, tortured, or displaced by Muslim terrorist groups like Boko Haram.
Moore issued a statement saying, "The United States cannot stand idly by while believers are slaughtered. We must acknowledge the religious nature of this scourge of anti-Christian violence from radical Islamic terrorists. It’s time for the United States to defend our brothers and sisters in Christ, and designating Nigeria as a Country of Particular Concern will provide the diplomatic levers to do just that. I urge Secretary Rubio to designate Nigeria as a CPC without delay.”
With that CPC designation secured, the conversation now turns to what measures the Trump administration could take to crush terrorists and protect Christians in Nigeria.
Nigeria's government is firmly at fault for this growing crisis, which Moore explained thoroughly saying, “The government in Nigeria is complicit in the suffering of our brothers and sisters in Christ. If I should give some numbers really quick here: there have been 50,000 to 100,000 murdered Christians in Nigeria. This is an astounding number nobody is talking about."
Nigeria's Muslim President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has even flatly denied that a genocide is occurring by saying, "There’s no religious persecution in Nigeria. It’s a lie from the pit of hell.”
The "lie from the pit of hell" actually comes from Tinubu, who clearly endorses the slaughter of his own citizens because of his denial of Christian genocide. While regime change has a bad track record, the Trump administration could certainly consider such an option to remove Tinubu for being complicit in a genocide.
U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani has ordered the Trump administration to keep SNAP benefits funded as the government shutdown continues to drag on.
On Friday, Judge Talwani issued an order requiring the Trump administration to direct emergency funds to keep the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, otherwise known as SNAP, funded as the government shutdown is beginning to drag into the months.
The order will ensure that SNAP benefits continue to flow to the 42 million Americans who receive aid just hours before the funding was set to expire.
This order was issued just before a separate federal judge in Rhode Island issued an order mandating similar action from the Trump administration.
While military members and air traffic controllers face uncertainty about their next paycheck, these federal judges are making sure that those abusing welfare to support their lifestyle can still take advantage of the notoriously exploited SNAP program.
A coalition of 25 Democratic governors and state attorneys general sued the U.S. Department of Agriculture over its refusal to keep SNAP benefits funded during the ongoing government shutdown.
Considering Democrats are reliant on votes from those perpetually on welfare, it's no surprise to see Democrats push hard to keep those benefits paid out while doing nothing to fund the troops' paychecks.
Talwani, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama, wrote in her decision that, "It’s hard for me to understand how this isn’t an emergency when there’s no money and a lot of people need their SNAP benefits."
The issue is there isn't much money to go around as the USDA only has a $5 billion contingency fund which will now need to be spent on food stamps.
The Trump administration wanted to keep that contingency fund intact in order to respond to possible natural disasters.
Democrats don't care about ensuring that disaster response is maintained through the shutdown. After all, its Democrats in Congress who refuse to fund the government unless they secure absurd concessions from the GOP.
It's unclear what will happen from here as the Trump administration has yet to announce how it will proceed following these decisions. It's possible that there will be an appeal, but it would take months for this case to be decided, long after the emergency fund is drained.
Ideally, the GOP will take drastic action to end the shutdown but at this point, it seems unlikely that the GOP will unite and end the filibuster.
This decision also highlights the problem of federal judges appointed by Democrat presidents who consistently make activist rulings at the expense of good governance.