KATHERINE WALTER dot COM

A MidWestern transgender woman trying to survive in the real life.

Unheard and Unrepresented: The TikTok Ban and America’s Youth

By

On June 17, 2025

TikTok, the wildly popular video-sharing platform with more than 150 million American users, is once again under threat of a nationwide ban unless former President Donald Trump—now in office again—extends the deadline requiring its Chinese parent company, ByteDance, to divest. While the national security rationale remains a central talking point, the deeper issue is being overlooked: the demographic most impacted by this ban—American youth under 18—has no political representation and no say in this decision. In a democratic society, such a disconnect between governance and those governed raises serious ethical and structural concerns.

The Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (PAFACA), signed into law by President Biden in April 2024, mandates ByteDance to sell TikTok’s U.S. operations or face a ban by January 19, 2025. This law was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in TikTok v. Garland, reinforcing the government’s authority to act on national security grounds (Associated Press, 2025). But enforcement of the ban has been repeatedly delayed by President Trump through executive orders—ostensibly to allow for negotiations over a U.S. buyout of the platform (Allyn & Kim, 2025a).

What’s most troubling is how this entire debate—playing out in congressional hearings, courtrooms, and campaign rallies—has occurred without the inclusion or input of those most affected: young people. Teenagers make up a disproportionately large share of TikTok users, yet their opinions, interests, and creative spaces are being weighed and possibly erased by people they cannot elect, pressure, or even speak to.

Recent polling shows the sharp generational divide on this issue. According to Pew Research Center (McClain, 2023), only 18% of teens support a TikTok ban, in contrast with 38% of adults. Yet because minors cannot vote, run for office, or make financial contributions to campaigns, their overwhelming opposition to a ban goes unheard. The structure of the U.S. political system excludes them from direct participation, allowing their interests to be ignored in the name of protection.

This is not the first time youth culture has been targeted under the guise of national security or moral panic. In the 1950s, comic books were accused of corrupting children’s minds, leading to the creation of the Comics Code Authority, which gutted much of the medium’s artistic vitality (Reynolds, 1992). In the 1980s, Dungeons & Dragons was falsely linked to Satanism and suicide. Explicit music in the 1990s brought about parental advisory stickers and congressional hearings, though few long-term effects on youth behavior were ever substantiated. Time and again, American policy has leaned toward paternalistic control over genuine youth inclusion—and TikTok is only the latest chapter in this pattern.

Of course, concerns about data collection by a Chinese-owned company should not be dismissed. TikTok collects biometric identifiers, geolocation data, browsing history, and more. However, as Fung (2023) of CNN reports, there is no public evidence that this data has been shared with the Chinese government. Many social media platforms based in the U.S. collect similar or even more invasive information. If the core issue is data privacy, then comprehensive tech regulation—not selective banning—would be the more consistent and democratic solution.

Other democratic nations have pursued more measured responses. European governments have banned TikTok from official devices and demanded stricter privacy guarantees—but they have not banned it entirely from public use (Allyn, 2025). These more proportionate policies allow youth culture to continue while addressing national concerns with oversight and regulation. The U.S., on the other hand, is preparing to take the most drastic possible action: a nationwide removal of an app integral to teenage expression, identity, and even income.

TikTok is not just a platform for memes and dances. It is a digital public square for many young people. It’s where they express creativity, share political ideas, discover new music, form friendships, and build audiences. For some, it is a crucial income source through brand deals and affiliate links. Shuttering TikTok removes not just an app but an ecosystem of youth culture—without even giving that generation a seat at the table.

There are alternatives to an outright ban. The RESTRICT Act gives the Commerce Department the ability to monitor and restrict apps controlled by foreign adversaries, without defaulting to prohibition. Proposals such as requiring data localization, implementing third-party audits, or placing restrictions only on government devices would achieve better balance between security and liberty. More radically, policymakers could establish formal youth advisory boards to provide input on cultural and digital policy.

In a democratic society, representation is fundamental. And yet, American teens remain politically invisible. Their cultural spaces are scrutinized, regulated, or shut down by adults who claim to act in their best interest—but without ever asking what those interests actually are. To ban TikTok without youth input is to legislate without listening. It is a contradiction of democratic ideals.

The debate over TikTok is not simply about data or geopolitics—it is about who gets to be heard. Until young people are seen as full participants in the democratic process, decisions like these will continue to reflect not just national interests, but generational neglect. We must do better. Not only because TikTok matters—but because youth voices matter.

References

Allyn, B. (2025, April 4). Trump issues another TikTok ban extension. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2025/04/04/nx-s1-5347418/trump-tiktok-second-ban-delay

Allyn, B., & Kim, J. (2025a, January 18). Trump says he’ll likely give TikTok a 90-day extension. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2025/01/18/nx-s1-5266883/trump-tiktok-delay-ban

Allyn, B., & Kim, J. (2025b, January 19). TikTok is back online in the U.S., following Trump’s promise to pause the ban. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2025/01/19/nx-s1-5267568/tiktok-back-online

Associated Press. (2025, January 17). Supreme Court seems likely to uphold a federal law that could force TikTok to shut down on Jan. 19. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/tiktok-supreme-court-national-security

Fung, B. (2023, March 21). Lawmakers say TikTok is a national security threat, but evidence remains unclear. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/21/tech/tiktok-security/index.html

McClain, C. (2023, December 11). A declining share of adults, and few teens, support a U.S. TikTok ban. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/12/11/a-declining-share-of-adults-and-few-teens-support-a-us-tiktok-ban/

Reynolds, R. (1992). Superheroes: A modern mythology. University Press of Mississippi.

A Militarized Spectacle and a Day of Defiance

By

On June 14, 2025

In Donald Trump

Today, June 14, 2025, marks a symbolic and deeply contested moment in American political life. What should have been a celebration of national unity and civic pride—the 250th anniversary of the U.S. Army and Flag Day—has instead become a flashpoint for ideological division and widespread protest. In Washington, D.C., former President Donald Trump presided over a lavish and heavily militarized parade, coinciding with his 79th birthday, a convergence of personal and national milestones that critics say dangerously conflates the state with one man’s cult of personality (Wise and Lonsdorf 2025).

The military parade included over 7,000 troops, armored tanks, fighter jets, and even vintage WWII aircraft rumbling down Constitution Avenue, where an 18-mile security perimeter cordoned off large swaths of the city (Associated Press, 2025; Times of India, 2025). The estimated cost of the spectacle—between $25 and $45 million—was shouldered by a combination of government funds and undisclosed private donations (The Sun, 2025). Trump’s speech delivered at the opening of the parade was infused with nationalist rhetoric, invoking military obedience, patriotism, and “loyalty above politics.” Conspicuously absent was any mention of democratic norms, freedom of the press, or checks and balances. In this omission, critics say, lies the deeper threat of the parade: not simply the flaunting of military might, but the implicit message that personal rule and military force are superior to democratic deliberation.

This view has been sharply contested across the nation today through an estimated 2,000 protests organized under the banner of “No Kings Day” (Archie, 2025). These grassroots actions, held in nearly every state, serve as a counter-narrative to the parade’s pageantry. Demonstrators gathered in city parks, college campuses, public squares, and outside federal buildings to denounce what they see as a creeping authoritarianism that seeks to replace public service with personal loyalty, and democratic power with centralized control. As one protest sign read in Boston, “Democracy doesn’t need tanks. It needs voters.”

According to NPR’s reporting, “No Kings Day” is more than a single-day action—it is part of an ongoing movement rooted in civic resistance to the iconography of authoritarianism (Wise and Lonsdorf 2025). Protestors cite not only the militarization of public spaces, but also the Trump-era erosion of institutional norms: court-stacking, attacks on journalists, politicization of the Department of Justice, and the increasing normalization of dehumanizing rhetoric toward immigrants and political opponents. As one organizer in Chicago explained, “This is not about left or right. It’s about the line between democracy and dictatorship.”

In Seattle, protestors formed a human chain around the local federal courthouse. In Austin, a group of veterans read aloud passages from the Constitution in front of the state capitol. In New York, an interfaith coalition gathered at Riverside Church to pray for the resilience of American democracy. Many rallies included signs bearing slogans like “No Throne in the White House” and “The Republic, Not the Emperor.”

The irony of staging a military parade ostensibly to celebrate freedom while thousands gather to protest against perceived tyranny was not lost on foreign observers. Le Monde in France called the day “a surreal juxtaposition of liberty and submission.” German outlets compared the parade to historical shows of power under monarchies and fascist regimes. And in Canada, the phrase “No Kings” trended across social media, boosted by solidarity rallies in Toronto and Vancouver.

The optics of the parade—and its timing—are particularly provocative. According to NPR (Wise and Lonsdorf 2025), the event was initially pitched by Trump’s advisors as a “celebration of American greatness,” but it quickly evolved into what one anonymous source described as “theatrical power projection.” Though the Army’s 250th anniversary offers a legitimate historical milestone, critics argue that wrapping it around Trump’s personal brand diminishes the institution’s apolitical legacy. “This isn’t about honoring the military,” said Dr. Nathaniel Cortez, a historian of civil-military relations. “It’s about co-opting the military to serve political theater.”

In the past, presidential celebrations of the military have been framed by humility and respect for civilian oversight. Trump’s approach, however, recalls more disturbing precedents: Charles de Gaulle’s Bastille Day parade in 1968 during a political crisis, or the Soviet-style parades of Red Square. Such displays function as political pageants designed to link the identity of the leader to the strength of the state. That is precisely what many Americans protested against today.

Moreover, the fusion of military ritual with personal celebration—Trump’s birthday being the secondary justification for the date—signals a transformation of public commemoration into an extension of personal mythology. The implication is subtle but sinister: that the nation’s power flows not from the people but from the person who commands the spectacle. As NPR (Wise and Lonsdorf 2025) noted, the parade’s symbolism mirrors that of dynastic traditions where leaders mark their rule not through elections, but through choreographed shows of loyalty and grandeur.

Even Trump’s defenders have struggled to explain why a peacetime display of this magnitude is necessary, especially given its cost. Some Republican lawmakers voiced quiet discomfort but avoided public criticism. Others leaned into the cultural symbolism, echoing Trump’s call for “patriotic renewal.” In contrast, Democratic leaders have been blunt in their condemnation. Senator Ayanna Hartsfield (D-MA) called the parade “an absurd coronation fantasy that has no place in a constitutional republic.”

In this broader context, “No Kings Day” is not simply a reaction to a parade. It is a demand for clarity about what kind of country the United States aspires to be. The protestors are asking fundamental questions: Does patriotism require submission to military power, or is it best expressed through dissent? Is democracy sustained by displays of force, or by critical, engaged citizenship? Who ultimately holds the power—the people or the personalities?

By evening, as the sun set over the National Mall and the last aircraft flew over the Lincoln Memorial, the contrast between the military’s rumble and the people’s chants could not have been more distinct. One was loud, orchestrated, and state-sanctioned. The other was messy, diverse, and democratic.

It is easy to become desensitized to the spectacle. But moments like this one call for vigilance. Authoritarianism rarely arrives at once. It comes in increments—in normalization, in silence, in distraction. Today, many Americans refused to be silent or distracted. Instead, they marched, spoke, resisted, and insisted: there are no kings here.

References

Archie, A. (2025, June 14). ‘No Kings’ protests against Trump planned nationwide to coincide with military parade. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2025/06/14/nx-s1-5432708/no-kings-protests-military-parade

Associated Press. (2025, June 14). The Army is set to celebrate 250 years with a parade that coincides with Trump’s birthday. https://apnews.com/article/4cca4da0e89908d39c820240744375a1

Bauer, J. (2025, June 13). Major ‘No Kings Day’ protest brewing. New York Post. https://nypost.com/2025/06/13/major-no-kings-day-protest-brewing-amid-military-parade-plans/

The Cut. (2025, June 14). What to Know About ‘No Kings Day’. https://www.thecut.com/article/no-kings-day-protests-what-to-know.html

The Sun. (2025, June 14). Trump parade LIVE: Crowds begin to gather in Washington DC. https://www.the-sun.com/news/14479749/donald-trump-us-army-parade-birthday-live/

Times of India. (2025, June 14). Donald Trump’s 79th birthday: Washington to host US Army parade and celebrations on June 14. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/donald-trumps-79th-birthday-washington-to-host-us-army-parade-and-celebrations-on-june-14/articleshow/110044218.cms

Washington Post. (2025, June 13). ‘No Kings’ protests nationwide to push back on Trump’s ‘overreach’. https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2025/06/13/no-kings-protest-anti-trump-army-parade/

Wise, A. & Lonsdorf, K. (2025, June 14). Trump marks Army anniversary and birthday with military parade in D.C. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2025/06/14/nx-s1-5429660/military-parade-trump-army-anniversary-birthday

Trump’s War on Dissent

By

On June 8, 2025

In civil rights, Donald Trump

EDITORS NOTE: Graphic content / US Department of Homeland Security Police officers and members of the National Guard stand guard outside the Metropolitan Detention Center, MDC, in downtown Los Angeles, California on June 8, 2025. Hundreds of National Guard troops took up positions in Los Angeles on June 8 on US President Donald Trump’s orders, a rare deployment against the state governor’s wishes after sometimes violent protests against immigration enforcement raids. (Photo by Frederic J. Brown / AFP) (Photo by FREDERIC J. BROWN/AFP via Getty Images)

On June 8, 2025, President Donald J. Trump took the extraordinary step of deploying the California National Guard to Los Angeles without the consent of Governor Gavin Newsom. The move was prompted by days of civil unrest following aggressive ICE raids in predominantly Latino neighborhoods in Southern California. While the official justification cited the need to restore order, the action fits within a broader historical pattern of Trump’s antagonism toward civil protest, particularly those that question his policies or leadership. The deployment is significant not only for its legal implications but also for the insight it offers into Trump’s authoritarian inclinations and his evolving use of federal power.

The protests began on June 6, when ICE agents conducted a coordinated series of raids on businesses in Los Angeles, including several clothing wholesalers and a Home Depot, reportedly detaining 44 undocumented workers (Associated Press, 2025a). Demonstrators gathered almost immediately in response, particularly in the communities of Paramount and Compton. Local news outlets and protest organizers described the raids as racially motivated and disproportionate. Over the next two days, confrontations between protesters and law enforcement escalated. Reports from the Los Angeles Times indicated the use of tear gas, pepper spray, and flash-bang grenades by federal agents (Vanity Fair, 2025). Protesters were accused of throwing rocks and concrete chunks, and by June 7, over 100 arrests had been made (Schneid, 2025).

On the morning of June 8, Trump invoked Title 10 of the U.S. Code to federalize the California National Guard, ordering the immediate deployment of approximately 2,000 troops to the Los Angeles area (Associated Press, 2025a). The initial wave of around 300 soldiers was stationed outside federal immigration facilities, including detention centers in downtown Los Angeles. Department of Homeland Security personnel, joined by local law enforcement, used smoke and crowd-control tactics to clear demonstrators from the perimeter of these buildings (Vanity Fair, 2025). More troubling still, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth placed active-duty Marines at Camp Pendleton on high alert, stating that additional support would be mobilized if local resistance intensified (Wall Street Journal, 2025).

The legal basis for this intervention drew immediate scrutiny. Unlike the Insurrection Act—which has historically required consent from governors unless rebellion or national security threats are imminent—Title 10 allows the president to assume control of a state’s National Guard under more ambiguous circumstances. Trump’s use of this authority without consultation or approval from Governor Newsom represented a sharp departure from precedent (Washington Post, 2025). While prior instances of federal deployment have occurred—most notably during the civil rights era in 1965 and again during the 1992 Los Angeles riots—those actions typically involved collaboration between state and federal governments. Trump’s unilateral order broke with this tradition and raised immediate constitutional concerns.

Governor Newsom condemned the move, calling it “a political stunt masquerading as public safety” (Schneid, 2025). He emphasized that while some violence had occurred, local law enforcement had the situation under control. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass similarly criticized the decision, asserting that federal interference had inflamed tensions rather than de-escalated them (Associated Press, 2025b). Civil liberties organizations, including the ACLU, filed emergency injunctions in federal court, arguing that the federalization of the Guard in this context violated the Tenth Amendment and constituted an overreach of executive authority (Reuters, 2025).

Trump, meanwhile, defended his decision by invoking the language of law and order. On his Truth Social account, he referred to the demonstrators as “Radical Left agitators” and accused them of trying to undermine ICE’s lawful operations. He further announced a new federal regulation banning the use of masks at protests, which critics argued would further chill lawful dissent (The Daily Beast, 2025). In a televised address, he declared that “these protests are not about immigration—they’re about chaos, and we will not allow our cities to be taken over by mobs” (Vanity Fair, 2025). The administration’s framing of the protests as a rebellion rather than protected expression marked a dramatic escalation in tone.

This pattern is not new. During the summer of 2020, following the police murder of George Floyd, Trump threatened to deploy active-duty troops to major cities under the Insurrection Act. At the time, his Secretary of Defense, Mark Esper, opposed the idea, and the deployment was ultimately shelved in favor of National Guard assistance requested by governors (Baker et al., 2020). Still, the president’s language—especially his tweet that “when the looting starts, the shooting starts”—signaled an aversion to protest and a readiness to treat dissent as criminality. Twitter flagged the post for glorifying violence. Although he stopped short of federalizing troops in 2020, Trump’s second term has shown a greater willingness to follow through on such threats.

What has changed between 2020 and 2025 is both the legal assertiveness and the composition of Trump’s inner circle. Pete Hegseth, a conservative media personality and military veteran, now heads the Department of Defense and has shown no hesitation in using federal power to advance Trump’s agenda (Wall Street Journal, 2025). The administration no longer faces internal resistance to military deployments within U.S. borders, and Hegseth’s public statements indicate an expansive view of executive authority over domestic security.

The deployment of the National Guard in Los Angeles is troubling not only for its immediate impact but also for the precedent it sets. Legal scholars argue that the president’s invocation of Title 10 without compelling justification stretches the intent of the statute and undermines the balance of power between federal and state governments (Washington Post, 2025). By reframing peaceful protest as rebellion, the Trump administration expands the conditions under which future presidents might justify similar interventions. The deployment also serves to delegitimize public dissent and normalize military presence in response to constitutionally protected speech.

Politically, the move appears calibrated to energize Trump’s base. By portraying the protests as violent and anarchic, Trump crafts a narrative of national chaos that only he can control. This strategy, first evident in 2016 and refined in 2020, has become more explicit in his second term. Commentators have described the Los Angeles deployment as a “dress rehearsal” for federal crackdowns in other cities, particularly those governed by Democratic officials (The Daily Beast, 2025).

Civil liberties advocates warn that this could lead to an erosion of protest rights nationwide. If the federal government can override local control whenever political opposition manifests in the streets, then public assembly may become subject to partisan suppression. Already, activists report increased surveillance, aggressive policing, and prosecutions under federal statutes that were rarely used in past administrations (Reuters, 2025).

Perhaps most ominous is the symbolic weight of military deployment in a democratic society. The sight of uniformed troops in American cities sends a chilling message about the limits of dissent. It transforms the public square into a battleground and reduces the space for political disagreement. As historians have pointed out, democracy depends not only on laws and elections but also on norms of restraint and mutual respect. The willingness to call out troops against fellow citizens erodes those norms and creates a political culture of fear and coercion.

Trump’s aversion to civil protest is not merely personal—it is ideological. He views opposition as illegitimate and protest as rebellion. This worldview has shaped his policies and informed his rhetoric from the beginning of his political career. The events of June 8, 2025, are not an anomaly but the logical conclusion of a long-standing approach to governance—one that prioritizes control over compromise and sees federal power as a tool to crush dissent rather than uphold democratic rights.

As Americans reflect on this moment, the stakes are clear. The deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles raises profound questions about the future of civil liberties, the separation of powers, and the health of our democratic institutions. It challenges us to consider whether protest will remain a protected right or become a pretext for martial intervention. And it forces us to ask what kind of country we want to be: one where dissent is respected, or one where it is suppressed at the point of a gun.

References

Associated Press. (2025a, June 8). What to know about Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops to LA protests. https://apnews.com/article/national-guard-trump-los-angeles-protests-2025

Associated Press. (2025b, June 8). California governor calls Trump’s move “inflammatory” as Guard arrives in L.A. https://apnews.com/article/newsom-trump-national-guard-2025

Baker, P., Shear, M. D., & Schmitt, E. (2020, June 3). Trump’s authority to send troops into states, explained. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/03/us/politics/trump-military-authority.html

Reuters. (2025, June 7). White House aide calls Los Angeles anti-ICE protests an insurrection. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-declares-los-angeles-protests-insurrection-2025

Schneid, R. (2025, June 8). Trump sparks backlash as National Guard arrives in L.A. on his orders. TIME. https://time.com/trump-national-guard-backlash-los-angeles-2025

The Daily Beast. (2025, June 8). It’s summer in Trump’s America and fascism is in bloom. https://www.thedailybeast.com/donald-trump-has-a-bad-case-of-premature-despotism

Vanity Fair. (2025, June 8). National Guard troops arrive in Los Angeles after Trump signs orders. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/story/national-guard-arrive-in-los-angeles-after-trump-signs-orders

Wall Street Journal. (2025, June 8). Trump advisers once opposed using active-duty troops at protests. Not anymore. https://www.wsj.com/politics/elections/trump-advisers-once-opposed-using-active-duty-troops-at-protests-not-anymore-96afb208

Washington Post. (2025, June 8). Trump charts new territory in bypassing Newsom to deploy National Guard. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/06/08/trump-national-guard-la-protests-law

Unapologetically Sexual

By

On May 30, 2025

In LGBTQ+ rights, sexuality

I was let go from my student teaching position because of some tweets. In these posts, I said, among other things, “I like to suck dick.” It wasn’t part of a curriculum. It wasn’t aimed at students. It was a personal expression—raw, queer, unapologetic. And for that, I was deemed “unfit.”

But I am not ashamed. Because when I say something as simple and carnal as “I like to suck dick,” I’m not being obscene—I’m declaring war on the suffocating norms that define who gets to express desire and how.

Let’s be clear: this isn’t just about sex. It’s about power.

The phrase “I like sex” is broadly acceptable when said by a cis, straight man. Even when women say it, it must be delivered with just the right balance of flirtation and modesty, wrapped in acceptable femininity. But when a transgender woman like me speaks directly and honestly about her sexuality—without euphemism, without apology—it’s treated as taboo. It becomes scandalous, political, dangerous.

And that’s exactly why I say it.

Heteronormativity doesn’t just regulate bodies—it polices desire. It dictates what kind of sex is real, what kind of sex is dirty, and which voices are allowed to claim desire at all. Trans women are often reduced to caricatures: hypersexual porn tropes or sexless tokens of pity. To say, plainly and proudly, that I love sucking dick is to reject all of that. It’s to assert my autonomy, my pleasure, and my humanity.

Yes, I am a transgender woman. Yes, I am sexual. And yes, I will speak about it.

My words weren’t unprofessional. They were inconvenient—to a system that still finds trans joy threatening and trans pleasure unspeakable. I lost a role in education for telling the truth about myself. But I gained something else: clarity. I know now that empowerment doesn’t come from fitting in. It comes from taking up space. From naming what you’re told to hide. From loving your body and your voice enough to say what they told you you shouldn’t even feel.

So I will continue to speak freely. Not because I want to provoke—but because I refuse to be erased. I want other trans women to know that they can be intelligent, nurturing, sexual, kinky, loud, soft, and bold—all at once. I want us all to know that our worth doesn’t shrink because someone else is uncomfortable with our truths.

When I say “I like to suck dick,” I’m not just being honest.

I’m being powerful.

And in a world built to silence women like me, that is revolutionary.

The Hidden Costs of Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill

By

On May 29, 2025

In Donald Trump

WASHINGTON, DC – MAY 22: U.S. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA) speaks to the media after the House narrowly passed a bill forwarding President Donald Trump’s agenda at the U.S. Capitol on May 22, 2025 in Washington, DC. The tax and spending legislation, called the “One, Big, Beautiful Bill” Act, redirects money to the military and border security and includes cuts to Medicaid, education and other domestic programs. Johnson was flanked by House Committee Chairmen who helped craft the legislation. (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

As a former Senior Program Specialist with the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) at the USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service, I am deeply concerned about the ramifications of President Donald Trump’s recently passed “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (OBBB). While touted as a transformative economic package, this legislation poses significant threats to both the national economy and the well-being of millions of Americans, particularly through its drastic cuts to SNAP.

The OBBB extends the 2017 tax cuts and introduces additional reductions, primarily benefiting corporations and high-income individuals. Proponents argue that these measures will spur economic growth. However, the Congressional Budget Office projects that the bill will add approximately $3.8 trillion to the national deficit over the next decade (Vanity Fair, 2025). This increase in debt raises concerns about long-term fiscal sustainability and the potential for higher interest rates, which could stifle economic growth rather than promote it.

One of the most alarming aspects of the OBBB is the proposed $300 billion cut to SNAP over the next ten years (Kiplinger, 2025). These cuts would tighten eligibility requirements, shift program costs to states, and limit future benefit increases (Newsweek, 2025). Such changes threaten to increase food insecurity among low-income families, children, the elderly, and individuals with disabilities.

In Wisconsin, for instance, the state could lose over $300 million in food assistance, potentially affecting more than 700,000 residents (Economic Times, 2025). These reductions not only jeopardize the health and well-being of vulnerable populations but also place additional financial burdens on state governments and local communities.

SNAP benefits are not just a lifeline for recipients; they also play a crucial role in supporting local economies. Every dollar spent on SNAP generates approximately $1.50 to $1.80 in economic activity (KCRG, 2025). Cuts to the program could therefore have a cascading effect, reducing revenue for grocery stores, farmers, and food producers. In Iowa, the president of the Iowa Farmers Union expressed concern that reduced SNAP benefits would hurt farmers by decreasing demand for their products (KCRG, 2025).

The OBBB’s approach to shifting SNAP administrative costs to states—up to 75%—represents an unfunded mandate that could strain state budgets (Newsweek, 2025). States would be forced to make difficult decisions, potentially cutting other essential services or increasing taxes to cover the shortfall. This shift undermines the federal-state partnership that has been fundamental to the success of SNAP.

The “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” presents a facade of economic progress while undermining the very foundations of food security and fiscal responsibility. As someone who has dedicated a career to ensuring access to nutrition assistance, I find the proposed cuts to SNAP not only detrimental to individual well-being but also harmful to the broader economy. Policymakers must reconsider these provisions to protect vulnerable populations and maintain the integrity of programs that have long served as a safety net for millions of Americans.

References:

Page 1 of 12

Next

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén