Category: political organizations

Volunteers prepare food packages at a local distribution center as millions face uncertainty over SNAP benefits amid the ongoing government shutdown. (Image generated by ChatGPT using DALL·E, 2025.)

I write this as someone who served for twelve years as a Senior Program Specialist for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) at the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). During my time with the agency, I witnessed firsthand how critical the program is to millions of American families. The system depends on a consistent flow of federal funds, and when that flow is interrupted—as it will be tomorrow—the consequences are devastating.

Beginning November 1, SNAP benefits are set to lapse due to the ongoing federal government shutdown. The USDA announced that it will not issue new benefits because regular appropriations have not been passed for fiscal year 2026 (Associated Press, 2025). The department has stated that it cannot legally draw from the contingency fund to cover regular benefits, even though those funds exist for emergencies (Reuters, 2025).

The USDA maintains an emergency or contingency fund of approximately $5 to $6 billion. That money was created to ensure that families would not go hungry during funding lapses or disasters. Experts argue that the USDA has both the legal authority and the moral obligation to tap this fund (Center for American Progress, 2019). From my years working within the program, I know that withholding this funding is not a technical necessity—it is a political decision.

More than 42 million Americans depend on SNAP each month (Center for American Progress, 2019). If those benefits stop, food insecurity will spike immediately. Local food banks will be overwhelmed, and low-income families will struggle to put meals on the table. The refusal to release the contingency funds ensures that millions will suffer unnecessarily.

In an October 24 memo, the USDA stated that “SNAP contingency funds are only available to supplement regular monthly benefits when amounts have been appropriated for, but are insufficient to cover, benefits” and that “the contingency fund is not available to support FY 2026 regular benefits, because the appropriation for regular benefits no longer exists” (Reuters, 2025, para. 4). However, this interpretation contradicts previous USDA practices. In past shutdowns, the department used available reserves to issue benefits, recognizing the essential nature of the program (Center for American Progress, 2019).

Republican lawmakers have claimed that the shutdown—and the resulting SNAP lapse—is the fault of Democrats for refusing to pass appropriations or a continuing resolution. They argue that accessing contingency funds would be “legally unavailable” or would create administrative chaos (Politico, 2025). These talking points are misleading. The contingency fund is legally available under the Food and Nutrition Act, and the infrastructure for benefit issuance remains intact (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 2025). The administration’s decision not to use the funds is political, not procedural.

From my professional experience, I can say that the USDA’s current position is indefensible. SNAP’s contingency fund exists precisely to prevent hunger during political gridlock. To deny families access to food because of an interpretation of funding language is a dereliction of duty. Past administrations, regardless of party, have prioritized feeding Americans even during shutdowns. That precedent should not end now.

By this weekend, millions of Americans will begin to feel the impact. Food banks will face long lines. States will scramble for stopgap solutions. Children, seniors, and people with disabilities will suddenly find themselves without the support they have come to rely on. The suffering that will follow is not inevitable—it is a choice. The federal government must either pass funding immediately or authorize the release of contingency funds to keep SNAP operational.

SNAP benefits should not be held hostage to political posturing. This program is one of the most effective anti-poverty tools the nation has ever created. The machinery to deliver aid is ready—the only missing element is political will. The American people deserve better.

References

Associated Press. (2025, October 30). USDA says SNAP benefits to lapse as shutdown drags on. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/8a52a63b26a707ea676962226b090bb1

Center for American Progress. (2019, January 18). The Trump administration has the power and legal obligation to pay SNAP benefits during the shutdown. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-trump-administration-has-the-power-and-legal-obligation-to-pay-snap-benefits-during-the-shutdown

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. (2025, October 27). SNAP’s contingency reserve is available for regular SNAP benefits as USDA weighs options. https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/snaps-contingency-reserve-is-available-for-regular-snap-benefits-as-usda

Politico. (2025, October 30). Trump administration faces lawsuit over decision to halt food aid during shutdown. https://www.politico.com/news/2025/10/30/trump-administration-snap-food-aid-lawsuit-shutdown-00630133

Reuters. (2025, October 24). USDA memo says it will not use emergency funds for November food benefits. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/usda-memo-says-it-will-not-use-emergency-funds-november-food-benefits-2025-10-24

The Federalist Society: Expanding Influence Beyond the Courts

By Katherine Walter

On November 28, 2024

In Federalist Society

The Federalist Society has long been a powerful player in shaping the U.S. judiciary, particularly with its substantial impact on the Supreme Court. With six of the nine justices currently linked to the Society, its influence is undeniable. However, its ambitions reach far beyond the courts. The group is now actively working to extend its conservative vision into other influential sectors, including business, media, and technology. This broadening of influence is part of a larger conservative agenda to reshape American society through a multi-pronged strategy.

The Federalist Society’s Influence in Business and Wall Street

The Federalist Society’s efforts to influence corporate America are significant. The organization has built ties with major businesses and financial sectors, advocating for a deregulatory approach that benefits corporate interests. This alignment with Wall Street promotes a conservative free-market ideology that favors limited government intervention in business practices, environmental regulations, and corporate governance. From a liberal standpoint, this is troubling because it threatens to undermine progressive policies focused on regulating industries, addressing climate change, and protecting consumers. As the influence of the Federalist Society grows, it becomes clear that conservative ideals about capitalism are increasingly dictating the direction of American business practices (Feldman, 2024; Hawley, 2024).

In Silicon Valley, the Federalist Society’s concerns about tech regulation, including issues like censorship, privacy, and antitrust laws, highlight its opposition to progressive regulatory frameworks. As technology companies continue to face scrutiny over their role in political discourse, the Federalist Society’s push for a lighter touch from regulators clashes with calls for stricter oversight. This divide is emblematic of the ongoing debate over the role of government in regulating powerful tech firms, with the Society advocating for fewer restrictions that align with its conservative values (Feldman, 2024).

Hollywood and the Cultural Battle

The Federalist Society’s influence extends into the cultural realm as well, particularly in Hollywood. Conservative leaders within the Society are pushing to counter what they see as a liberal bias in the entertainment industry. They aim to ensure that films, TV shows, and other media reflect conservative values, contributing to the ongoing cultural battle over issues such as gender, race, and the role of government. This effort is part of a broader movement to reshape public discourse and challenge what conservatives perceive as an ideological monopoly in cultural production (Feldman, 2024).

Leonard Leo: The Architect Behind the Movement

At the heart of the Federalist Society’s judicial and cultural influence is Leonard Leo. As one of the Society’s leading figures, Leo has been instrumental in shaping the judicial appointments that have cemented the conservative majority on the Supreme Court. Beyond the courts, Leo has deep ties to conservative donors and business figures, including the Koch brothers, further amplifying his influence across various sectors. His connections to corporate and political elites highlight the interconnectedness of the Federalist Society’s ambitions in reshaping not just the judiciary, but also business, media, and policy at large (Hawley, 2024; NPR, 2024).

Leo’s efforts to reshape American society go beyond simply nominating judges; they reflect a broader strategy to create a network of like-minded individuals and organizations that can influence policy in ways that favor conservative economic and social values. His role in promoting these connections underscores the Federalist Society’s growing power and its ambition to reshape all aspects of American governance and culture (Hawley, 2024).

A Liberal Critique: Undermining Democracy and Progress

From a liberal perspective, the Federalist Society’s expansion into business, media, and other influential sectors is deeply concerning. The group’s push for deregulation and limited government intervention in both the economy and tech industry poses a direct challenge to progressive efforts to protect workers, consumers, and the environment. By aligning itself with powerful corporate interests, the Federalist Society is seen as prioritizing elite, conservative agendas over the needs of the broader public.

The organization’s focus on judicial activism is also problematic. While the Federalist Society claims to be promoting neutral legal philosophy, its alignment with conservative political movements and business elites reveals its true goal: to advance a right-wing agenda that undermines democratic processes and curtails civil rights. The increasing power of the Supreme Court, as shaped by the Federalist Society, raises alarms about the erosion of democracy and the rule of law in favor of a conservative agenda that ignores the will of the people (NPR, 2024; Hawley, 2024).

Conclusion

The Federalist Society’s growing influence beyond the judiciary is a significant shift in the conservative movement’s strategy to reshape American society. Through its efforts to infiltrate business, media, and tech industries, the Society is pushing a right-wing agenda that threatens to undermine progressive policies and democratic values. With figures like Leonard Leo at the helm, the Federalist Society is well-positioned to continue its efforts to shape not only the law but also the cultural and economic fabric of the nation. For liberals, this marks a troubling expansion of conservative power that requires a strong, coordinated response to ensure that democratic values and public welfare are not sidelined in favor of corporate and ideological interests.

References

Feldman, N. (2024). How the Federalist Society came to dominate the Supreme Court. Harvard Gazette. https://content.news.harvard.edu

Hawley, T. (2024). The Federalist Society Isn’t Quite Sure About Democracy Anymore. POLITICO. https://www.politico.com

NPR. (2024). The Federalist Society’s influence on the conservative Supreme Court. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2024/11/24/nx-s1-5199049/federalist-society-conservative-supreme-court

What Project 2025 Could Mean for Me

By Katherine Walter

On November 13, 2024

In Project 2025

Thinking about the future can feel overwhelming these days, especially as an openly transgender woman preparing to teach high school students. Project 2025—a policy plan from conservative think tanks, including the Heritage Foundation—aims to reshape the federal government in ways that could drastically impact education, public policies, and protections for LGBTQ+ individuals. As someone who plans to teach in public schools and who cares deeply about creating safe, inclusive spaces, I can’t help but reflect on what this project might mean for me and for others like me.

At its core, Project 2025 is a conservative “wish list” designed to realign the federal government with what its authors call “traditional” values. Its goals include reducing regulations, diminishing protections for LGBTQ+ individuals, and limiting certain topics in education. By targeting social policies that they see as overly progressive, the project seeks to roll back recent advancements in LGBTQ+ rights, particularly in areas like healthcare, workplace protections, and public education. The impact of these changes, however, wouldn’t stop at the federal level—they would likely encourage similar initiatives at state and local levels, leading to an even more divided and polarized society. If Project 2025 were to come to fruition, it could make life harder and less safe for transgender individuals, impacting not only my personal life but my professional future as an educator.

One of my greatest concerns is how this project could affect transgender people’s access to healthcare. Under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), protections were established to ensure that transgender individuals could not be discriminated against in accessing healthcare. However, Project 2025 proposes a major reduction of federal involvement in healthcare, which could make it easier to limit or outright remove these protections. During the Trump administration, attempts were made to roll back these same ACA protections for transgender people, and it’s likely that Project 2025 would pursue similar changes. For transgender people like me, these protections are more than just legal victories—they are crucial for accessing gender-affirming care and basic healthcare without fear of discrimination or refusal of service. Removing them would deepen an already significant barrier, complicating and threatening our ability to receive compassionate care.

Job protections are another concern. In 2020, the Supreme Court ruled that employment discrimination based on gender identity was prohibited under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. This decision was a hard-won victory for LGBTQ+ rights, but Project 2025’s agenda could challenge its enforcement. The plan could weaken the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) stance on these protections, creating a situation where LGBTQ+ employees face higher risks of discrimination with fewer resources to turn to. As a transgender woman who is preparing to work in a public high school, the idea that I might lose protections from workplace discrimination or harassment is deeply concerning. Working without a sense of job security or safety because of who I am isn’t just intimidating—it’s destabilizing.

Public visibility and safety for transgender people could also be under threat if Project 2025 becomes reality. Already, certain states are pushing policies that restrict transgender rights, such as banning gender-affirming healthcare for minors, limiting restroom access, and curtailing the use of preferred names and pronouns in schools. Project 2025 could make such state-level restrictions more widespread, creating an increasingly hostile environment for transgender people across the country. The everyday hostility transgender people navigate could become an even greater burden under a government that actively endorses policies to restrict our rights and visibility in public spaces.

In my role as a future teacher, I’m particularly worried about how Project 2025’s education policies could impact schools. In its emphasis on restoring “traditional” values, the project targets what it sees as overly progressive curricula. For many educators, especially LGBTQ+ teachers, this could mean a dramatic shift in what we’re able to say, teach, or discuss with our students. Conservative educational policies have already placed restrictions on discussing topics of gender identity and sexual orientation, and Project 2025 could take this further, curbing the very conversations that help foster empathy and understanding in diverse classrooms. For an openly transgender teacher, this kind of restrictive environment could mean walking a tightrope, avoiding essential discussions on identity and inclusion to avoid professional risk or penalties.

Beyond content restrictions, Project 2025 could also impact teachers’ freedom to express support for LGBTQ+ rights openly. Some recent state-level policies prevent teachers from using a student’s chosen name or pronouns, even if doing so would support a student’s mental health and identity. If a Project 2025-influenced administration encourages such restrictions at the federal level, it would push teachers into a troubling situation. We could face the choice of following rigid policies or being there for our students in ways we know are vital to their well-being. I can imagine the conflict that might arise from trying to be an inclusive, compassionate teacher while navigating policies that could treat such support as unprofessional or even punishable.

A government agenda like Project 2025 could also leave transgender teachers professionally vulnerable. If this project’s policies limit support for LGBTQ+ rights in public education, teachers who openly identify as transgender or who vocally support LGBTQ+ students may find themselves targeted, scrutinized, or penalized. This kind of professional risk could discourage talented, caring teachers from entering or remaining in the field, ultimately harming students who benefit from seeing themselves represented among the adults who guide them.

Despite all the anxieties and uncertainties, Project 2025’s rise has also reminded me of the power of community and resilience. People from all walks of life support diversity and inclusion, and we’re not alone in standing up for an education system that welcomes everyone. There are many of us who are ready to push back against policies that seek to diminish our visibility and rights, and we’re prepared to continue advocating for inclusive schools. The possibility of Project 2025 becoming reality doesn’t just challenge us—it motivates us to strengthen our support networks, raise our voices, and remind others that the values of inclusion and respect are worth fighting for.

While Project 2025 looms as a potentially drastic shift in the government’s approach to transgender rights and public education, I still find hope. Across the country, students, parents, allies, and educators believe in the importance of diversity and inclusion, and together, we can push back against policies that fail to protect our rights. As a future teacher, I am committed to fostering a classroom where all my students feel seen, heard, and valued. Despite the challenges that may come, I am confident that with resilience and community, we can hold on to the progress we’ve made—and keep pushing forward for even more.