Tag: Human Rights Page 2 of 4

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 Problem with “Owning the Libs”

By Katherine Walter

On September 20, 2025

In political science

Illustration contrasting “own the libs” cruelty with progressive compassion. (Image generated by ChatGPT, 2025)

In recent years, the phrase “own the libs” has become a rallying cry for many conservatives. At first glance, it might seem like harmless political banter—a way to laugh at the other side. But taken seriously, this mindset reveals something troubling about how politics is being practiced in the United States. It shows a shift away from solving problems and toward something much darker: treating politics as a game where the goal is to make other people suffer.

The idea of owning the libs is not about making life better for ordinary people. Instead, it’s about celebrating when someone else is angry, humiliated, or hurt. Passing laws that restrict healthcare, rolling back rights for LGBTQ+ people, or undermining voting access aren’t framed as solutions to real problems. They are framed as victories precisely because they upset progressives. Cruelty itself becomes the goal.

But politics should not be about harming others—it should be about helping people. That is the central difference between the conservative “own the libs” mindset and progressive politics. Progressives, at their best, focus on policies that improve people’s lives: expanding access to healthcare, making schools stronger, reducing poverty, and protecting the freedom to live authentically. The success of progressive politics is measured in lives improved, not tears shed by political opponents.

This difference matters because it points to two fundamentally different visions for our society. One vision treats politics as a contest of domination, where the worth of an idea lies in how much it angers “the other side.” The other vision treats politics as a tool for compassion, where the worth of an idea lies in how much it improves the lives of our neighbors.

Of course, no political movement is perfect. Progressives sometimes stumble, and not every policy works out as intended. But there is an important moral distinction between trying to help people and trying to hurt them. If our politics is driven by spite, we will end up with policies that deepen division and suffering. If our politics is driven by empathy, we have at least a chance at building a society that is fairer, freer, and more humane.

The question is not whether liberals or conservatives “win.” The real question is: do we want our politics to be about cruelty—or about compassion?

OPM Ends Gender-Affirming Care in 2026

By Katherine Walter

On August 25, 2025

In LGBTQ+ rights

The recent announcement from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) that gender-affirming health care will be excluded from the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) and Postal Service Health Benefits (PSHB) programs beginning in 2026 represents a profound step backward in civil rights and health equity. Under this directive, chemical and surgical interventions for gender transition will no longer be covered, though counseling for gender dysphoria must remain available. Insurance carriers are required to develop exceptions processes for individuals currently undergoing such care, yet the parameters of those processes remain undefined. Providers of gender-affirming care are also barred from being listed in plan directories, effectively discouraging access (Office of Personnel Management, 2025; Moss, 2025).

To understand the gravity of this reversal, it is necessary to recall how hard-fought the gains for transgender health care under FEHB were. In 2014, OPM lifted the longstanding blanket exclusion of gender-affirming procedures, and by 2016 carriers were instructed not to categorically deny such care. This change aligned federal benefits with emerging medical consensus that gender-affirming treatments are not elective but medically necessary. The World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) and the Endocrine Society have long affirmed that access to hormone therapy and surgeries significantly reduces psychological distress, improves quality of life, and prevents serious health complications (Hembree et al., 2017; Coleman et al., 2022). For nearly a decade, transgender federal employees and retirees could rely on this coverage as a matter of equity and recognition of their humanity.

As a transgender woman who has been receiving gender-affirming health care for more than eleven years, this policy shift strikes me not just as a bureaucratic adjustment but as a direct threat to my life and well-being. Having undergone an orchiectomy, I rely on estradiol not simply as an affirming treatment, but as essential hormone replacement. Without it, my bones, cardiovascular health, cognition, and emotional stability would be at severe risk. Estradiol for me is no different than thyroid medication for someone with hypothyroidism—it is medically necessary, lifelong care. To see it lumped under a politically charged category of “optional” transition services is both scientifically inaccurate and deeply insulting.

What unsettles me most is the uncertainty this policy creates. OPM’s promise of an “exceptions process” offers little clarity. Will it protect those of us with medical histories spanning over a decade of consistent care? Or will it force us into endless appeals and denials, treating every prescription refill as a battle? This ambiguity is destabilizing, and I cannot help but feel that it is intentional—designed to make care harder to access and to discourage providers from stepping forward.

As a federal retiree, I gave years of service under the assumption that the benefits I earned would protect me equitably. Now, I feel as though my identity has made me a target within the very system I trusted. The estimated 14,000 transgender federal employees and retirees who will be affected are not faceless statistics; we are people who dedicated our careers to serving this country, only to be told that our health care needs are unworthy of recognition (Lambda Legal, 2025; them.us, 2025). The exclusion also signals a dangerous precedent: that essential medical care can be stripped away not because of evidence or cost, but because of politics.

This change must be understood in its broader social context. Over the past decade, transgender Americans have seen both progress and backlash. The Affordable Care Act’s Section 1557 extended nondiscrimination protections in health care, and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020) affirmed that gender identity is protected under Title VII. Yet, simultaneously, states across the country have passed laws restricting access to gender-affirming care, particularly for youth, framing these measures as cultural wedge issues. The OPM directive extends that wave of exclusion into the federal system, embedding discrimination into the nation’s largest employer-based insurance program.

For me personally, this is not an abstract policy debate. It is about whether I will be able to continue accessing the medication that keeps me healthy and alive. It is about whether the years of progress we celebrated were only temporary reprieves. And it is about what message this sends to younger transgender people entering federal service today: that their health and dignity can be used as bargaining chips in political battles.

I cannot help but feel anxious about what the future holds, but I also feel resolved. This rollback will not go unchallenged. Advocacy groups such as Lambda Legal, the National Center for Transgender Equality, and others have already condemned it as unlawful and are preparing legal strategies (Lambda Legal, 2025). As a transgender woman and a retiree, I plan to add my voice to that chorus, because silence is what allows discrimination to endure. We have fought too hard, and for too long, to let the ground be taken out from under us without resistance.

References

Coleman, E., Radix, A. E., Bouman, W. P., Brown, G. R., de Vries, A. L. C., Deutsch, M. B., … Winter, S. (2022). Standards of Care for the Health of Transgender and Gender Diverse People, Version 8. International Journal of Transgender Health, 23(sup1), S1–S259. https://doi.org/10.1080/26895269.2022.2100644

Hembree, W. C., Cohen-Kettenis, P. T., Gooren, L., Hannema, S. E., Meyer, W. J., Murad, M. H., … T’Sjoen, G. G. (2017). Endocrine Treatment of Gender-Dysphoric/Gender-Incongruent Persons: An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 102(11), 3869–3903. https://doi.org/10.1210/jc.2017-01658

Lambda Legal. (2025, August 19). Lambda Legal condemns Trump administration’s illegal exclusion of gender-affirming care from employee health benefits. Retrieved August 22, 2025, from https://lambdalegal.org/newsroom

Moss, K. (2025, August 20). Coverage for gender-affirming care will be eliminated from FEHB plans in 2026. Government Executive. Retrieved August 22, 2025, from https://www.govexec.com

Office of Personnel Management. (2025). Carrier Letter 2025-01b: Chemical and surgical sex-trait modification exclusion. Retrieved August 22, 2025, from https://opm.gov

them.us. (2025, August 20). Trump Admin to end coverage of gender-affirming care for federal workers. them. Retrieved August 22, 2025, from https://www.them

Trump’s Rejection of Judicial Authority

By Katherine Walter

On April 17, 2025

In Donald Trump

GREENBELT, MARYLAND – APRIL 15: Protesters show support for Jennifer Vasquez Sura, the wife of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was mistakenly deported to El Salvador, outside Federal Court on April 15, 2025 in Greenbelt, Maryland. The Trump administration admits Abrego Garcia was deported accidentally but has not yet acted on a judge’s order to facilitate his return to the U.S. (Photo by Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images)

The ongoing refusal of the Trump administration to comply with a United States Supreme Court order to assist in the return of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia marks a chilling affront to the American legal system and the principle of judicial supremacy. Garcia, a lawful permanent resident of the United States and father of a disabled child, was wrongly deported to El Salvador on March 15, 2025, in direct violation of an existing court order. The administration later acknowledged that his removal was an “administrative error”—yet, despite this admission, it has failed to take any substantial action to correct it (Kirchgaessner, 2025). This failure is not simply a bureaucratic misstep. It represents a dangerous consolidation of executive power at the expense of the judiciary and the rule of law.

Upon his arrival in El Salvador, Garcia was detained in the Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo (CECOT), a mega-prison that has gained international notoriety for its brutal conditions and widespread human rights violations (D’Onfro, 2025). His detention there was not based on any criminal wrongdoing, but rather on the Salvadoran government’s agreement to hold him after his improper deportation from the United States. Legal advocates, human rights observers, and lawmakers have described his treatment as an egregious miscarriage of justice, compounded by the U.S. government’s refusal to seek his repatriation.

On April 4, 2025, U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis issued a ruling ordering the federal government to “facilitate” Garcia’s return. This was not merely a suggestion—it was a binding judicial order grounded in well-established principles of due process and the right to legal redress (Van Hollen, 2025). The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ruling, affirming that Garcia’s deportation was unconstitutional and that the executive branch was obligated to act. When the matter reached the U.S. Supreme Court, the justices unanimously upheld the lower courts’ findings. Though the Court did not mandate Garcia’s immediate return—citing the limitations of compelling action from a foreign sovereign—it left no ambiguity regarding the federal government’s duty to actively work toward his release (Reeves, 2025).

The Trump administration’s response to this unanimous rebuke by the judiciary has been marked not by compliance but by continued defiance. President Trump has claimed that the administration lacks the authority to retrieve Garcia from El Salvador, despite the fact that it was the United States that deported him in the first place. In a joint statement with Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele, Trump asserted that the situation is now out of his hands, a position contradicted by constitutional scholars and the federal courts alike (D’Onfro, 2025; Kirchgaessner, 2025). This abdication of responsibility undermines the judiciary’s role as a co-equal branch of government and sets a precedent in which executive officials may disregard lawful court orders without consequence.

The implications of this case extend far beyond the personal suffering of Kilmar Abrego Garcia and his family. They cut to the heart of American constitutional democracy. When a president refuses to obey a lawful order from the Supreme Court, he does not merely flout protocol—he challenges the very structure of governance. The U.S. legal system depends on the principle that no individual, including the president, is above the law. By ignoring the Court’s decision, the Trump administration has placed itself outside this principle, signaling that judicial mandates are subject to executive convenience rather than constitutional obligation.

Senator Chris Van Hollen, who has taken the unusual step of traveling to El Salvador to personally advocate for Garcia’s release, has characterized the administration’s inaction as a “constitutional crisis” (Van Hollen, 2025). Legal experts and political observers have warned that this incident could erode public confidence in the judiciary and embolden future administrations to disregard unfavorable rulings. Edward Luce (2025), writing for Reuters, noted that “defying the Supreme Court is not just a political gambit—it is a direct assault on the legitimacy of the courts themselves.” If this approach is allowed to stand unchallenged, it risks normalizing a pattern of executive overreach that may be far more damaging to American democracy than any single deportation.

This episode also raises serious questions about the role of international diplomacy in protecting human rights. By deporting a lawful resident into the custody of a foreign prison system with a documented history of abuse, and then refusing to advocate for his return, the U.S. government has abandoned not only Garcia but also its commitment to due process and basic human dignity. The fact that the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision has been effectively ignored should alarm anyone who values the rule of law.

The crisis surrounding Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s wrongful deportation is more than a legal dispute; it is a moral reckoning. It confronts Americans with the question of whether the constitutional checks and balances that have long defined our system of government still hold in practice. The judiciary must not be reduced to a symbolic institution whose rulings can be disregarded at will by the executive branch. Upholding the Court’s authority is not optional—it is essential to preserving the democratic fabric of the nation. If the president is permitted to ignore the courts with impunity, the consequences will reverberate through every aspect of American governance, weakening the very foundations of justice and accountability.

References

D’Onfro, J. (2025, April 10). Trump escalates fight over deportees in El Salvador, weighs sending Americans there next. TIME. https://time.com/7277797/trump-escalates-fight-over-deportees-in-el-salvador-weighs-sending-americans-there-next/

Kirchgaessner, S. (2025, April 8). Judges threaten to prosecute Trump officials over deportation of migrants. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/08/kilmar-abrego-garcia-deportation-trump-court

Luce, E. (2025, April 17). Defiance of U.S. Supreme Court poses tricky price. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/breakingviews/defiance-us-supreme-court-is-tricky-price-2025-04-17/

Reeves, R. (2025, April 12). Supreme Court rebukes Trump over deportation case, calls for Garcia’s return. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/12/us/politics/supreme-court-garcia-deportation.html

Van Hollen, C. (2025, April 14). Statement on efforts to return Kilmar Abrego Garcia. U.S. Senate Press Release. https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/statement-on-efforts-to-return-kilmar-abrego-garcia