Tag: public policy Page 1 of 4

Disappointed in Senator Durbin

On November 11, 2025

U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin speaks during the Illinois Democratic County Chairs’ Association brunch on Aug. 13, 2025, in Springfield, Illinois. (Dominic Di Palermo/Chicago Tribune/Tribune News Service via Getty Images)

When I was in college, I volunteered on the campaign of Dick Durbin for his first run for the U.S. Senate seat for Illinois. I remember knocking on doors and speaking to voters about his vision for fairness, compassion, and opportunity. Over the decades since then, I’ve admired his consistency, integrity, and leadership. From his advocacy for civil rights and consumer protections to his steadfast defense of democracy, Senator Durbin has been a voice I have long trusted.

That’s why his recent decision to side with Republicans on a measure to end the federal government shutdown deeply troubles me. According to multiple reports, in November 2025, Senator Durbin joined seven other Democrats in voting to advance a Republican-led continuing resolution intended to reopen the government (Sfondeles, 2025; Grisales & Garrett, 2025). While the bill provided temporary funding and back pay for federal workers, it failed to extend the enhanced Affordable Care Act (ACA) premium tax credits—a lifeline that has helped millions of Americans maintain access to health insurance since 2021 (Associated Press, 2025).

The expiration of these enhanced ACA tax credits could cause premiums to skyrocket, pushing millions off their insurance plans and destabilizing the individual health insurance market (Associated Press, 2025). For years, Democrats have fought to expand and secure these subsidies precisely because they save lives. Abandoning that effort, even temporarily, risks the health and well-being of ordinary families who cannot absorb the cost of rising premiums.

Senator Durbin defended his vote by calling the legislation “imperfect” but “necessary” to alleviate the growing strain on federal workers and agencies during the prolonged shutdown (Grisales & Garrett, 2025). Yet to me, this decision reflects a dangerous form of pragmatism—one that accepts short-term political relief at the expense of long-term justice.

Even more alarming is the fact that this measure arose from Republican efforts to hold the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) hostage in budget negotiations (Potter et al., 2025). Forcing millions of Americans to face hunger in order to extract political concessions is beyond comprehension and morally unacceptable. It reveals the degree to which the GOP is willing to use the most vulnerable members of society as bargaining chips—a tactic that, if not strongly resisted, will surely be used again in the future.

The move sets a disturbing precedent: if political leverage can be gained by threatening to withhold food and healthcare from those in need, what moral boundary remains? Senator Durbin, as the second-ranking Democrat in the Senate, had the power to send a message that such tactics would never be rewarded. Instead, his vote may embolden those who see cruelty as an effective negotiation strategy.

I do not write this out of anger, but out of heartbreak. I have admired Senator Durbin for much of my adult life. His record on immigration, education, and reproductive rights remains admirable. Yet in this moment, he seems to have forgotten that principles, not expedience, are what distinguish true leadership from mere management.

Ending the shutdown matters—but ending it on Republican terms and without protecting healthcare and nutrition assistance for millions sends the wrong message about what our values are worth. Illinois Democrats, including several prominent leaders, have voiced similar disappointment, warning that this compromise “is not a deal—it’s an empty promise” (Crisp, 2025).

As one of the people who once proudly campaigned for Senator Durbin’s first Senate victory, I hope he will remember that Illinoisans have long expected moral courage from him—not accommodation. The enhanced ACA tax credits must be renewed, and SNAP must be protected, not weaponized. The lives and dignity of millions of Americans depend on it.

References

Associated Press. (2025, November 10). An emerging shutdown deal doesn’t extend expiring health subsidies. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/2b5ae3651ff16783a00e00dc1ce264bf

Crisp, J. (2025, November 10). Illinois Democrats at odds with Durbin over vote to end shutdown. Daily Herald. https://www.dailyherald.com/20251110/us-congress-politics/illinois-democrats-at-odds-with-durbin-over-vote-to-end-shutdown/

Grisales, C., & Garrett, L. (2025, November 10). Senators, including Dick Durbin, take first step toward reopening the government after historic shutdown. WGLT (Illinois Public Radio). https://wglt.org/illinois/2025-11-10/senators-including-dick-durbin-take-first-step-toward-reopening-the-government-after-historic-shutdown

Potter, D., Franco, M. A., Peters, S., Wooten, T., Stimers, P., Roberson, J. E., & DeLacy, C. (2025, November 10). Senate advances funding bill to end record shutdown. Holland & Knight Alert. https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2025/11/senate-advances-funding-bill-to-end-record-shutdown

Sfondeles, T. (2025, November 10). Sen. Dick Durbin facing backlash once again for joining GOP in measure to end government shutdown. Chicago Sun-Times. https://chicago.suntimes.com/us-senate/2025/11/10/sen-dick-durbin-compromise-measure-federal-government-shutdown-end-democrats-backlash

Sutherland, C. (2025, November 10). The eight senators who broke with Democrats to end the government shutdown. TIME. https://time.com/7332610/8-senators-broke-with-democrats-to-end-government-shutdown/

Hunger by Choice: The SNAP Crisis No One Needed

By Katherine Walter

On October 31, 2025

In United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)

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