{"id":18893,"date":"2025-10-30T18:29:18","date_gmt":"2025-10-30T17:29:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kaizen-blog.org\/?p=18893"},"modified":"2025-10-30T19:00:17","modified_gmt":"2025-10-30T18:00:17","slug":"die-gewollten-hungerspiele-wie-trump-den-aermsten-das-brot-verweigert-eine-bedrueckende-investigative-recherche","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/kaizen-blog.org\/en\/die-gewollten-hungerspiele-wie-trump-den-aermsten-das-brot-verweigert-eine-bedrueckende-investigative-recherche\/","title":{"rendered":"The Intended Hunger Games \u2013 How Trump Denies Bread to the Poorest. A Distressing Investigative Report"},"content":{"rendered":"

The paralysis in Washington has further worsened the hunger crisis in America, which affects not only numbers but people. The shutdown has now lasted four weeks, and as of November 1, the suspension of food assistance threatens almost the entire breadth of American society that depends month after month on an electronic card because even with work, the money is not enough. According to government figures, around 42 to 44 million people use the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP. A system that functions like a debit card, at the supermarket, the dollar store, the farmers market, even online with retailers like Amazon. On average 187 dollars per person per month, too little to live on, too much to cut without consequences. That this very program is now being used as a bargaining chip in the power struggle marks a turning point: for the first time since its introduction, benefits are simply not to be paid out because the government is closed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

The Department of Agriculture announced it in a manner that, even in Washington\u2019s heated language, feels like a slap in the face. On its own website stood a partisan accusation, followed by the sentence that the source had run dry, that there would be no benefits on November 1. That in the same breath it was claimed that the blockade served dubious culture-war goals of the other side shows how far the executive has drifted from the sober administration of a basic right: the right not to go hungry. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\n

\u201cDemocrat senators have now voted twelve times against funding the food stamp program, also known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). In short: the source has run dry. As of now, no benefits will be paid on November 1. We are approaching a turning point for the Democrats in the Senate. They can continue to insist on health care for illegal immigrants and gender mutilation procedures - or reopen the government so that mothers, babies, and the weakest among us can receive the urgently needed nutrition assistance.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The banner was removed after a few hours, as it clearly violated the Hatch Act - the US law that obliges government agencies to remain politically neutral. Even more serious: the text deliberately spread disinformation by blaming the Democrats alone for the impending suspension of food benefits and using terms that originate from far-right campaigns. Even in Washington, where rhetoric is often sharp, this appearance was seen as a taboo breach. It shows how far the government is now willing to go - and that apparently nothing is too shameful anymore when it comes to justifying its own political agenda.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

No one seriously disputes that the ministry has five to six billion dollars in emergency reserves that could bridge the gap. SNAP costs eight billion per month, so the buffer would not cover everything, but it would prevent refrigerators from emptying overnight, shopping carts from standing still, and children from going to school without breakfast. That is exactly what is now at stake in court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\n

An image that has now become part of everyday life in America: people waiting in long lines for their food assistance<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

A coalition of more than two dozen states, led by New York, California, and Massachusetts, filed a lawsuit in federal court in Boston on October 28. The argument is clear and harsh: the Food and Nutrition Act obliges the federal government to provide benefits for all eligible recipients. That the agency refuses to do so by citing the shutdown is avoidable, arbitrary, and unlawful. The case landed before federal judge Indira Talwani; she hears on October 30 the motions to compel the USDA to use the reserves.\nExcerpt from the 51-page complaint <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Auszug aus der 51-seitigen Klageschrift<\/strong><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\n

The complaint, filed on October 28, 2025, in federal court in Boston, is titled \u201cCommonwealth of Massachusetts et al. v. U.S. Department of Agriculture et al.\u201d and unites an unusually broad alliance. Led by Andrea Joy Campbell (Massachusetts), Rob Bonta (California), and Letitia James (New York), more than two dozen states and the District of Columbia joined together to sue the federal government over the abrupt suspension of SNAP benefits. On 51 pages, the attorneys general of the participating states list their names, addresses, and representations - a legal signal of remarkable unity.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The contradiction is obvious: our research found that there are internal papers, precedents, there is a report from the Government Accountability Office dated June 25, 2020, showing that exactly these emergency funds can be used in comparable situations. Nevertheless, the agency now declared that the funds were not legally available. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\n

The report documents that the Department of Agriculture in 2019 paid out SNAP funds prematurely without legal basis, that the GAO deemed it a violation of law - and that the ministry did not acknowledge responsibility. Thus the GAO report from 2020 is a central precedent.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

At the same time, an earlier implementation plan was removed from the website, which explicitly mentioned the will of Congress to maintain SNAP during a shutdown. When states sue in such a situation, it is not out of principle but because they know that otherwise food distribution and emergency aid will exceed their capacities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n