When the money stops, the truth starts.
When the federal government shuts down, it doesn’t crash — it collapses inward. It’s a slow suffocation of the systems that hold this country together, a deliberate pause that exposes just how fragile the structure really is. Offices go dark, paychecks vanish, and the quiet machinery that keeps daily life functioning simply stops. This isn’t “politics in D.C.” — this is the nation’s pulse fading because those entrusted with power chose paralysis over service. A shutdown is not a standoff; it’s proof that the government’s priorities have shifted away from the people it was built to protect.
And now, it’s happening during the one time of year when food defines the American table — Thanksgiving. While politicians posture in front of cameras, millions of citizens wonder if they’ll have enough to eat. The timing isn’t coincidence; it’s exposure. It forces the truth into the light: poverty in America is not a statistic — it’s policy. Food insecurity isn’t a symptom — it’s a consequence of decisions made by those who will never miss a meal. This moment is not a political crisis; it’s an audit of national character. It shows who is protected, who is forgotten, and who benefits when chaos starves the working class.
And maybe that’s the point. Sometimes, you can’t tell people the truth — you have to show them. The shutdown is doing exactly that. It’s showing, in real time, what misplaced priorities look like. It’s showing how dependent the system has made the people, how deeply entrenched the neglect runs, and how quickly corruption rises to the surface once the money stops flowing. President Trump is afforded a rare opportunity to shine a hard light on the many things I present to you in this article.
One of the most vital lifelines for millions of Americans: the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. For many, this isn’t simply a form of government aid—it’s the difference between having dinner and skipping a meal.A shutdown doesn’t erase SNAP, but it freezes the system that makes it work. The federal government’s power to spend money vanishes until Congress authorizes it again. That means even though the program exists in law, its funding pipeline stops cold. The states that administer SNAP can’t move federal funds, can’t issue benefits, and can’t promise their residents that the next month’s groceries will be covered.
In times like this, the structure of SNAP—how it is funded, managed, and divided between federal and state responsibility—comes into focus. It becomes clear that while every state delivers the benefits, the source of the money is federal. And yet, some states, like California, have built additional safety nets of their own, creating state-funded programs that operate alongside federal ones. The contrast between these systems reveals a deeper story about how government works—or doesn’t—when politics stop the flow of money.
The federal government shut down because Congress was unable to agree on a funding bill or continuing resolution to authorize spending for the new fiscal year. At the heart of the impasse are competing demands: Republicans pressed for a “clean” funding bill with minimal policy changes, while Democrats insisted on including extensions for health insurance tax credits and protections for “vulnerable” populations defined as low-income immigrants and undocumented migrants.
In the weeks ahead of the funding lapse, Democratic lawmakers insisted that any continuing resolution include extensions of the health insurance subsidies under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), protection for “vulnerable” populations, and permanent legislation for certain documented and undocumented immigrants and refugees. On the other side, Republican leadership pressed for a “clean” funding bill that excluded policy riders and upheld strict border enforcement, arguing that broad omnibus spending packages would reward illegal immigration and excess spending.With neither side willing to compromise early, the impasse deepened and the deadline passed — triggering the shutdown.
What is SNAP?
SNAP—the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program—is a federal entitlement run by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The benefit dollars that load onto EBT cards are federal funds; states don’t pay those benefits out of their own treasuries. States do administer SNAP (processing applications, running eligibility systems, and operating EBT platforms), but the money itself is obligated by USDA and flows under federal law. Because SNAP is an entitlement, anyone who meets the federal eligibility rules is guaranteed benefits when appropriations are in place; the federal government’s role is funding, the state’s role is administration.
A crucial part of those federal eligibility rules concerns immigration status. Undocumented immigrants are not eligible for federal SNAP, while U.S. citizens and many “qualified” non-citizens—such as refugees, asylees, and lawful permanent residents who meet waiting-period rules—are eligible. The USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service sets and explains these categories; the upshot is that immigration status alone can make or break a federal SNAP case, even when income and household size would otherwise qualify someone.
Because those federal gates are real, a number of states have built their own, state-funded food assistance to cover people who are excluded from SNAP solely due to immigration status. At least 6 blue states now run state-funded SNAP clones for immigrants ineligible for federal benefits. California’s CFAP is the biggest—and most insulated from D.C. chaos.
California created a parallel program decades ago and expanded it. The California Food Assistance Program—CFAP—is a state-funded counterpart to CalFresh (California’s name for SNAP). CFAP pays benefits with state dollars to immigrants who are excluded from federal SNAP solely because of immigration status. The state is phasing in a broader expansion authorized in recent budgets: first opening to older adults, and moving toward broader coverage in the coming years, all while keeping CFAP funds strictly separate from federal CalFresh funds.
Illinois has also put state money on the table, but in a more targeted way. Rather than a universal SNAP-look-alike, Illinois funds nutrition assistance for certain immigrants who are outside federal SNAP because of status, focusing on people connected to humanitarian protections—for example, applicants for T or U visas or asylum and their derivative family members—under a state framework documented by immigrant-eligibility guides and advocacy groups. It’s not a full state-wide mirror of SNAP for all undocumented residents; it’s narrower and keyed to specific immigration pathways.
New York, by contrast, does not currently run a universal, state-funded SNAP equivalent for undocumented adults statewide. The legislature has considered a “SNAP for All” bill that would create a state-funded benefit for residents excluded from federal SNAP solely because of immigration status, but that proposal is still a bill, not enacted law. During the current federal shutdown, the Governor has steered emergency state dollars to food providers to blunt the cliff for households losing federal SNAP, which shows New York’s willingness to fund food aid, but that is different from operating a standing, SNAP-mirror program for undocumented adults.
Oregon is moving down the path New York is debating. Lawmakers advanced “Food for All Oregonians,” a proposal to create a state program providing food assistance to residents who would qualify for SNAP but for their immigration status. The bill text and public summaries lay out phased eligibility—youth and elders first—with implementation targeted in statute for later years; as of now, it is a policy under development rather than a mature, ongoing SNAP look-alike paying benefits today.
So when the federal government shuts down, here’s the irony:
U.S. citizens and lawful residents who depend on federally funded CalFresh might not get their benefits if the shutdown drags on — because those are federal dollars, frozen until Congress acts. But at the same time, some non-citizen residents in California could still receive state-funded food aid under CFAP, because that program is powered by state money, untouched by the federal freeze.
Has California been “co-mingling” such funds? California “co-mingling” funds — by law, can’t happen. It’s that the state built a separate system, parallel to the federal one, to fill the gap for those excluded by federal rules. The result is a strange imbalance: the people the federal government is supposed to prioritize may go hungry during a shutdown, while those funded by the state continue receiving benefits uninterrupted.
In other words, US citizens won’t get benefits but illegal migrants will. California will be feeding non-US citizens leaving lawful citizens hungry.
That contrast won’t sit well with most Americans, especially when you understand the mechanics. It’s not about compassion or cruelty — it’s about structure. One program depends on Congress. The other depends on Sacramento. And when Congress fails to act, it’s the ordinary, eligible citizens — the working poor, single parents, elderly, veterans — who find themselves standing at the checkout line, wondering why their government card suddenly doesn’t work.
A shutdown reveals something deeper about the country: how fragile the systems are that people rely on daily, and how easily the political class can weaponize those systems. The food assistance network isn’t just about calories — it’s about stability, dignity, and trust. When that trust is broken, even temporarily, it forces people to see where power really sits — and how thin the line is between support and abandonment.
That’s what a government shutdown really means. It’s not just a Washington story. It’s a story told in quiet kitchens, in grocery aisles, in the anxiety that creeps in when the safety net trembles.
What Can President Trump Do?
A government shutdown begins when Congress fails to pass a spending bill or a continuing resolution that authorizes the federal government to spend money. Under the Constitution, only Congress holds the power of the purse; no agency, and not even the president, can spend or obligate funds without that authority. When appropriations expire, federal operations slow or stop, and the country enters a period of uncertainty in which essential programs struggle to function.
In that moment, the president’s influence lies in leadership and negotiation rather than direct spending. The executive branch cannot unilaterally reopen the flow of money, but it can drive the political process that restores it. The president can meet directly with congressional leaders, bring both parties to the table, and shape the terms of a deal that reauthorizes government operations. Once an agreement is reached, the president’s signature on a new funding measure—whether a full budget or a short-term continuing resolution—immediately restores legal spending authority across the federal system.
President Trump could use his power to end it would rest on that combination of negotiation and decisive action. By pressing Congress to prioritize core safety-net programs like SNAP, WIC, and veterans’ benefits, he could frame the debate around protecting citizens first and push legislators to deliver a bill that funds those programs without delay. The moment such a measure reached the Oval Office and received the president’s signature, the Department of Agriculture would regain its authority to issue payments, and the flow of federal benefits—including food assistance—would resume within hours.
He has tried that and it hasn’t worked as the Democrats refuse to agree.
What else can he do?
While the Antideficiency Act bars the executive branch from obligating or spending money without an appropriation, a president still has levers that can soften the blow—none of which replaces Congress’s power of the purse. Emergency declarations do not create new money, but they can redirect agency attention toward activities that are already lawful. In practice, that means directing departments to prioritize life- and property-protecting functions that remain “excepted” during a lapse and to focus any already-available balances on the most urgent needs. The Government Accountability Office’s shutdown primer is blunt: agencies cannot make new obligations or payments in advance of or in excess of an appropriation, with only narrow exceptions for emergencies that protect life and property and for activities funded by sources that remain legally available. A president can lean on those exceptions to keep critical systems warm, but not to write new checks.
Within the Department of Agriculture, the White House can instruct the Secretary to wring every lawful hour out of what remains available—carryover balances, contingency reserves, and mandatory authorities—so programs like SNAP, WIC, and school meals are disrupted as late and as little as possible. We’ve seen this playbook before. During the 2018–2019 shutdown, USDA told states to issue February SNAP early—by January 20—leveraging authority tied to a continuing resolution to front-load benefits and buy time for households and retailers. The GAO later reviewed that maneuver in detail, underscoring how narrow the legal pathway was; it worked as a stopgap, but it was not a blank check to keep SNAP going indefinitely. The lesson is that administrative discretion can smooth timing, not manufacture funding.
Another lever sits outside the usual appropriation stream: the Commodity Credit Corporation. The CCC is a federally owned government corporation at USDA with standing borrowing authority—up to $30 billion outstanding at any time—to carry out purposes specified in the CCC Charter Act, such as supporting farm incomes, stabilizing commodity markets, and conducting certain food-aid activities. Because the CCC can borrow from Treasury under its permanent authority, administrations of both parties have used it as a financial backstop in crises—for example, to purchase commodities and route them through food banks or other channels when market shocks threatened supply. President Trump could direct the Secretary to mobilize CCC tools to buy and move staple foods, shoring up the charitable pipeline while SNAP is frozen. That doesn’t replace SNAP (SNAP is a statutory entitlement paid from annual appropriations), but CCC can keep food flowing to communities and stabilize producers until Congress restores normal funding.
Messaging and coordination are not cosmetic; they’re operational. The President can order USDA, Treasury, and state partners to keep EBT rails and retailer authorizations technically ready, maintain call centers and certification staff to the extent legally permitted, and pre-stage issuance files so that the moment a continuing resolution is signed, benefits move within hours. That kind of direction matters because shutdowns are not just a funding problem; they’re a timing and systems problem. In the current lapse, for example, USDA has said it cannot use its contingency reserve to float a full month of SNAP, which is why some states have explored emergency steps of their own and why litigation has begun to test how far “available funds” can stretch. President Trump cannot overrule the Antideficiency Act, but can reduce chaos: clarify the rules, push agencies to the edge of what’s lawful, and publicly pressure Congress to pass a narrow, time-limited continuing resolution that restores USDA’s obligation authority so SNAP and WIC turn back on quickly.
Taken together, these tools—emergency prioritization within existing law, USDA timing flexibilities, CCC market-support and food-distribution authorities, and aggressive federal-state coordination—can cushion families and retailers during a shutdown. None of them substitute for a signed appropriation. But used skillfully, they keep the infrastructure alive, maintain a baseline of food moving through non-SNAP channels, and ensure that, the instant Congress acts, the pipeline of federal nutrition benefits springs back rather than restarting from cold iron.
Why is Gavin Newsome suing President Trump over SNAP?
Governor Newsom, together with Rob Bonta (California Attorney General), announced that California has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and its leadership in the Trump administration for what the state describes as an “unlawful refusal” to ensure SNAP benefits continue in the face of the ongoing federal government shutdown.
The core of California’s grievance is that USDA reportedly informed states that it would not issue the normally scheduled November SNAP benefit payments because its funding authority lapsed due to the shutdown. California contends that the USDA has contingency funds available—funds that are legally authorized to be used in circumstances like these—but the agency is refusing to tap them, effectively leaving millions of residents dependent on SNAP without the benefit they rely upon.
From California’s perspective, the state argues that USDA’s decision to withhold benefits despite available resources violates the law. Specifically, the lawsuit claims that the USDA cannot simply choose not to spend funds that are already legally available to pay benefits—especially when delay or suspension of those benefits threatens the well-being of vulnerable populations.
Their claim is legally unsound and therefore frivolous and for campaigning .
There is strong legal precedent supporting USDA’s and the administration’s position that federal agencies cannot issue SNAP benefits without an active congressional appropriation.
The most important legal foundation is the Antideficiency Act (31 U.S.C. §§ 1341–1342). Courts have repeatedly affirmed that agencies cannot legally obligate or spend money beyond what Congress has authorized. Violating that statute can expose federal officials to administrative and even criminal penalties.
In addition to the statute itself, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has issued decades of opinions reinforcing that rule. GAO decisions clarify that contingency or carryover funds can be used only within their statutory purpose—administrative continuity, not full benefit payments. When Congress fails to pass a funding bill, GAO has consistently held that the USDA and similar agencies must suspend benefit obligations until appropriations resume.
The most relevant precedent comes from the 2018–2019 shutdown, when the USDA faced a similar dilemma. It advanced February SNAP benefits early under a narrow window tied to an existing continuing resolution. Afterward, GAO reviewed the move and made clear that USDA acted within a very limited and specific legal exception—not a precedent for ongoing payments during a lapse.
So, based on existing case law, GAO interpretations, and the Antideficiency Act itself, the legal footing supports the USDA’s current position and by extension the administration’s stance that it cannot issue new SNAP benefits without congressional appropriations.
Governor Newsom’s lawsuit appears less about legal victory and more about political positioning. By filing a case he likely knows cannot succeed—the law is clear that the USDA cannot issue SNAP benefits without congressional appropriations—he’s creating a counternarrative before the criticism arrives. He understands that the administration will argue Democrats are prioritizing benefits for undocumented migrants while U.S. citizens go without, so the lawsuit functions as a preemptive defense. It allows him to claim moral high ground, to say he “fought for families” even when the courts inevitably side with federal law. In essence, it’s a strategic move to blunt the political blow he knows is coming, transforming a legal loss into a talking point about compassion and resistance rather than fiscal overreach.
Furthermore, Governor Newsom chose to sue in the middle of a shutdown when the law so clearly restricts what the president can do? From a political standpoint, the lawsuit creates a stage. If I were President Trump, I’d use that moment to show the public that while the administration is following the law—bound by the Antideficiency Act and the limits Congress has set—Governor Newsom is still moving forward with state programs that provide benefits to undocumented migrants even as federal aid for U.S. citizens remains frozen. That contrast alone tells a story: while federal agencies are obeying fiscal law and waiting for Congress to act, some Democratic-led states are prioritizing non-citizen aid with state funds.
Framed correctly, that becomes an opportunity for President Trump to underline his long-standing argument that the impasse in Washington isn’t about process, it’s about priorities. Democrats, he could highlight, are holding up a funding bill because Republicans refuse to approve a package that expands benefits for undocumented immigrants while ordinary Americans—citizens who depend on federal programs like SNAP and WIC—are left in limbo. In that light, the lawsuit isn’t simply about food assistance; it’s a broader political statement about which side each party claims to stand for during a shutdown that directly affects millions of American families.
What can President Trump Do To Help US Citizens?
Ideally it would be great if he could take all of Congress and Senate salaries, but he can’t. The salaries of Senators and Representatives are controlled by Congress itself and paid from legislative-branch appropriations. The Constitution and statute protect that compensation in different ways. The Twenty-Seventh Amendment prevents Congress from changing its own pay that would take effect before the next election, and more generally pay for Members is a matter for the legislative branch. The executive branch has no unilateral authority to reprogram or “seize” congressional or senate payroll and apply it to executive-branch programs. The Antideficiency Act and appropriations law bar federal agencies from obligating or spending funds except as Congress has authorized; redirecting congressional or senate salaries to a new purpose would violate separation of powers and appropriations law and would invite immediate judicial challenge and criminal/executive-branch penalties. There is no lawful mechanism for a president to order Treasury to take congressional pay and give it to CCC purchases.
But the President could say something like this to further highlight Congress and Senate priorities (which should be U.S. Citizens):
“My fellow Americans, a government shutdown is more than a political fight in Washington. It has real, painful consequences for people across this country. While Congress continues its disagreement, millions of hard-working families face an impossible choice: buy medicine or buy groceries. I will not stand by and watch that happen.
Therefore, today I have ordered the Secretary of Agriculture to use every lawful tool to keep food moving to Americans in need. The Commodity Credit Corporation, established by law to stabilize agricultural markets and support food programs, has the authority to purchase commodities and to move them into the emergency food system. Working with FEMA, state emergency managers, and national and local food-bank networks, USDA will buy and distribute staple foods — rice, beans, canned proteins, shelf-stable meals — on a scale designed to reach communities most affected by SNAP interruptions.
Democrats shut down the government over benefits for non-citizens. I’m turning on the food pipeline with American farmers and American charities—because no child goes hungry on my watch.
Let me be clear about what this is and what this is not. This is not a substitute for SNAP or a permanent replacement for Congress doing its job. SNAP is a federal entitlement; only Congress can appropriate funding on a continuing basis. What we are doing is lawful emergency action to bridge an urgent gap and to prevent a humanitarian crisis. We will deliver food where it is needed, fast.
And for every member of Congress who claims to care about the people they represent: show it. If you believe families should not go hungry because of political gridlock, donate your pay to trusted food-bank partners and relief organizations that will immediately expand distribution on the ground. Those donations must be voluntary and will flow to charity partners working with USDA and state governments.
I call on Congress to pass a clean funding bill now so SNAP and all federal benefits can continue without disruption. Until then, this administration will do what the law allows to protect American families.”
For those unfamiliar with Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) and function allow me to brief you. The CCC is a USDA corporation with broad statutory authority to stabilize commodity markets, purchase and hold agricultural commodities, and support food programs. Because the CCC has standing borrowing authority, the executive branch can direct USDA to use CCC authorities to buy bulk staples from farmers and provide those commodities to food banks, to The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP), and to other distribution partners. CCC cannot reproduce SNAP’s EBT cash benefit (SNAP is an entitlement paid from appropriations), but it can procure and distribute actual food in mass. Congress has used the CCC for food purchases and emergency food-aid before. A CCC operation can be scaled, routed through FEMA/USDA networks, and delivered to cities and food banks. Legal and policy teams must structure those activities to fit within the CCC Charter Act’s authorized purposes.
The President would say something like :
“I have instructed the Secretary of Agriculture to use available CCC authorities and all lawful emergency tools to purchase and deliver food to Americans in need while Congress fails to act. We are mobilizing USDA, FEMA, and state partners to put groceries into the hands of families who depend on SNAP — not as a replacement for Congress’s job, but as an emergency bridge while lawmakers restore funding. At the same time, I call on members of Congress to voluntarily donate pay if they choose, to show solidarity with struggling families, and to pass a clean funding bill now so normal SNAP benefits can resume immediately.”
I believe this government shutdown has done more than stall operations; it has exposed the true priorities of those elected to serve in Congress and the Senate, revealing a profound disconnect between lawmakers and the citizens they claim to represent. It underscores a growing crisis of representation — one in which the everyday needs of U.S. citizens are routinely subordinated to political bargaining and ideological posturing. The situation unfolding around the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is not just a bureaucratic failure; it’s a mirror held up to the nation, reflecting how fragile the lives of millions have become when federal aid is suddenly cut off. When the flow of funding stops, so too does the illusion of security for millions of families who depend on that aid for food and shelter. This moment has thrust poverty — often a silent, invisible crisis — into the spotlight of national discourse, exposing just how dependent large portions of the population are on government assistance merely to survive.
I am positing a very unsettling question. When oversight mechanisms freeze along with the funding, what else might be uncovered? Could the suspension of operations reveal systemic fraud — “fake recipients” siphoning taxpayer dollars in the same way that politically connected figures have created “fake jobs” or consultancy schemes to enrich themselves under the guise of public service? The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the Office of Inspector General have long warned about inefficiencies and fraud in federal nutrition programs, from misreported eligibility data to improper state-level administration of funds. In 7 U.S.C. § 2020, the law makes states directly responsible for verifying eligibility and maintaining integrity in SNAP operations. If California, for example, has blurred the boundaries between federal and state food assistance — allowing state-funded benefits to undocumented residents through its California Food Assistance Program (CFAP) while managing federal CalFresh funds — then Governor Gavin Newsom’s heightened concern begins to make sense. The state’s overlapping programs could draw scrutiny under federal auditing standards if funds, systems, or personnel were found to be intermingled in ways that violate federal rules on segregation of funds or eligibility enforcement.
This is not conjecture but a legal reality. Federal SNAP dollars are governed by the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 and administered under the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 7, Part 272, which mandates that benefits go only to eligible U.S. citizens and qualified noncitizens. Any state activity that blurs those lines — intentionally or not — risks triggering a federal audit under 7 CFR § 275.3, the section requiring performance reviews and fiscal accountability for participating states. It is entirely possible that the current standoff, by forcing every agency to account for every dollar spent and every beneficiary served, will also illuminate the gray areas and inefficiencies that have long been shielded from public view.
Sometimes, words alone cannot awaken the public to the scale of a problem — they must see it for themselves. This shutdown, though disruptive and painful, is doing precisely that. It is exposing not only how dependent Americans have become on federal systems but also how poorly those systems have been safeguarded. It forces a reckoning with both political hypocrisy and administrative decay — showing, rather than merely telling, the nation where its leaders’ loyalties truly lie and how fragile the infrastructure of public trust has become.
If and when the shutdown ends and oversight bodies resume full operations, a cascade of audits and accountability mechanisms will follow. The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), the Department of Agriculture’s Office of Inspector General (OIG), and independent auditors within the states all have statutory obligations to review the use of federal funds under the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008. These mechanisms activate automatically whenever appropriations resume after a lapse. GAO reviews compliance with the Antideficiency Act (31 U.S.C. §§ 1341–1342) and 7 U.S.C. § 2020, which require that only eligible persons receive SNAP benefits and that states maintain strict financial integrity. Once auditors regain access to agency records, they will retrace every transaction delayed or deferred during the shutdown, examining whether states properly separated federal SNAP money from any state-funded parallel programs.
If those examinations reveal that a state used the same administrative systems or staff to process both state-funded and federally funded benefits without adequate accounting separation, the USDA can impose fiscal sanctions under 7 C.F.R. § 276.1(a) and demand repayment of misspent funds. In practice, that means California and other states with hybrid systems—California through CalFresh (federal) and CFAP (state-funded), Washington through its Food Assistance Program for Legal Immigrants—could face intense scrutiny. A full federal audit could also re-verify the eligibility of millions of recipients, matching Social Security numbers, lawful-presence documentation, and income data against federal databases.
Historically, such reviews have exposed both administrative inefficiencies and outright fraud. After the 2013 sequestration and again following the 2019 shutdown, the USDA’s OIG reported spikes in “improper payments” when state verification systems lagged behind. Under the Payment Integrity Information Act of 2019, every federal benefit program must now publish an annual improper-payment rate and justify corrective actions. If the current disruption delays issuances or forces manual processing, that data will sharpen auditors’ focus even further. In California’s case, where the legislature has chosen to expand state-funded aid to undocumented residents through CFAP, investigators will likely examine whether those operations remained strictly within state-funded accounts and whether any federal resources—software, personnel time, or data systems—were used indirectly to administer non-federal benefits.
In short, once Congress restores funding, the resumption of oversight could open the books wider than any routine review. The same shutdown that exposed the dependency of millions of Americans on federal aid could also trigger one of the most detailed accountability examinations in recent memory, forcing states and agencies to demonstrate, line by line, how every dollar was spent and whether it reached only those legally entitled to receive it. To be clear the AUDIT is automatic, there is no stopping that. President Trump will not let U.S. Citizens go hungry during Thanksgiving.
The shutdown didn’t break the system — it revealed it. When the money stopped, the truth surfaced: this government feeds dependence, not the people.”
Terpsehore Maras
If you like my work, you can tip or support me via TIP ME or subscribe to me on Subscribestar! I am 100% people-funded, I have NO SPONSORS. You can also follow and subscribe to me on Rumble and Locals or subscribe to my Substack. I am 100% people-funded. www.toresays.com
Digital Dominion Series is now on Amazon: VOLUME I, VOLUME II, and Volume III – and Pre-order for Digital Dominion Volume V is on presale now.
