This report is not a prediction born of speculation; it is a projection grounded in statute, precedent, and fiscal arithmetic. What follows is an assessment of how a single judicial act—though morally driven and legally defensible in isolation—could intersect with a dormant trade conflict and a stalled Congress to trigger a systemic failure of the United States food-security architecture. It is an examination of law behaving exactly as written, yet producing the opposite of its intended effect.
The reciprocity between the Rhode Island federal order, the pending Supreme Court tariff decision, and the Antideficiency Act represents a convergence unseen in modern American governance. Each mechanism operates lawfully, yet together they form a closed circuit of deprivation: a court mandates spending, another court restricts revenue, and Congress remains gridlocked. Within that loop, Section 32—the quiet fiscal artery that feeds the nation’s farms, schools, and families—begins to hemorrhage.
I am writing this as both warning and record. It is addressed to those who still believe that the Constitution’s separation of powers is not an inconvenience but an inheritance—a safeguard meant to prevent compassion from becoming calamity. If the scenario described herein unfolds unchecked, historians will not ask who intended it, but who allowed it.
In the wake of the November 6, 2025 federal court order requiring the Trump administration to fully fund November SNAP benefits, the United States stands at the edge of a potentially devastating fiscal and agricultural crisis. What began as a humanitarian intervention—a judge’s attempt to prevent millions of Americans from going hungry during the longest government shutdown in history—now threatens to destabilize the very foundation of the nation’s food-security system.
With SNAP’s contingency reserves exhausted, the only viable funding mechanism left is Section 32 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1935—a permanent appropriation derived from 30 percent of U.S. customs receipts. But Section 32 was never designed to bankroll entitlement programs. It underwrites the school-lunch system, farm-price stabilization purchases, and commodity support operations that keep the American food economy balanced. To drain it for SNAP would be to cannibalize the infrastructure that ensures food remains available and affordable.
Compounding the risk, Section 32’s lifeblood—customs and tariff revenues—is itself in jeopardy amid ongoing federal litigation challenging the legality of major import tariffs. If those tariffs are struck down or suspended, the revenue stream feeding Section 32 could collapse just as the fund is being emptied to cover emergency SNAP obligations. The result could be a manufactured famine: not from lack of crops, but from the breakdown of fiscal, legal, and logistical systems that convert America’s agricultural abundance into accessible food.
On November 6, 2025, U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell Jr. in Rhode Island issued an extraordinary oral order directing the Trump administration to fully fund November SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) benefits for roughly 42 million Americans. The order came amid a 37-day government shutdown—the longest in U.S. history—during which SNAP payments had partially lapsed for the first time ever. The administration argued it lacked authority to continue full benefits without a congressional appropriation. Judge McConnell disagreed, ruling that the “irreparable harm” facing millions of low-income families, children, and seniors outweighed procedural limits, and ordered USDA to find the funds immediately.
In practical terms, this means the judge is compelling the executive branch to finance SNAP by tapping Section 32 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1935—a permanent appropriation funded by 30 percent of all U.S. customs and tariff receipts. Section 32 was never meant to bankroll cash entitlement programs; it exists to stabilize farm prices, purchase surplus commodities, and fund child-nutrition programs such as free and reduced-price school lunches. But with SNAP’s small contingency reserves already spent on partial payments earlier in the month, Section 32 is now the only liquid federal account capable of covering the program’s $8 billion in monthly costs.
This is why the separation of powers exists: not to obstruct compassion, but to protect the republic from the unintended consequences of unilateral action
Here lies the constitutional and economic fault line.
Under the Appropriations Clause (Article I, Section 9, Clause 7) of the U.S. Constitution, Congress alone controls federal spending. The executive branch executes appropriations, and the judiciary interprets the law—it does not command expenditures. Those powers are separated to prevent precisely what is happening now: one branch compelling another to spend public funds absent a legislative appropriation.
By ordering USDA to fully fund SNAP without an enacted budget, the court is effectively reallocating congressional power, directing the executive to divert money from one statutory purpose (agricultural stabilization and child nutrition) to another (emergency food assistance). It’s an unprecedented judicial intervention into fiscal policy—driven by compassion, but colliding with the constitutional firewall designed to prevent financial chaos.
Section 32 brings in roughly $15 to $20 billion per year—revenue derived from tariffs and import duties. In normal years, about $12 to $14 billion of that money is immediately transferred to fund school lunch and breakfast programs, leaving only $4 to $6 billion in discretionary balance for commodity purchases, market stabilization, and emergency interventions.
By contrast, SNAP requires around $8 billion per month to operate. If USDA obeys the Rhode Island court’s order and covers the full November benefit using Section 32, it will exhaust the account in less than two months. Once depleted, USDA would no longer have the funds to purchase surplus crops or support domestic food programs. Farmers would lose their safety net. Schools would lose funding for lunches and breakfasts. Food banks and community feeding programs would see their commodity supplies collapse.
That cascade would hit just as another threat emerges: the ongoing legal challenges to U.S. tariffs, which Section 32 depends on for its revenue stream. If those tariffs are struck down or suspended, the inflow to Section 32 would shrink dramatically—potentially to zero—leaving USDA without a replenishment mechanism. The nation could enter 2026 with no operational fund for farm stabilization, no reserve for school nutrition, and no fallback for low-income families once SNAP runs dry.
The Hidden Engine of U.S. Food Security: Section 32’s Fragile Fiscal Architecture
Judge McConnell’s order to fully fund November SNAP benefits has inadvertently exposed the single most fragile point in America’s food-security infrastructure: Section 32 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act (7 U.S.C. § 612c). It’s not a line-item appropriation funded by taxpayers; it’s a self-sustaining account fed by a fixed share—30 percent of all U.S. customs receipts—transferred automatically to USDA each year. For decades, this mechanism ensured that as America traded, the nation’s agricultural base remained stable. The design was elegant: import activity funded export resilience, school meals, and surplus purchases.
But the system depends entirely on tariff volume, and in the aftermath of the 2018–2019 trade wars, adversarial governments learned precisely how that linkage works. When tariff volatility spikes, Section 32’s inflows swing wildly. During the original Trump-era hikes—imposed under Sections 232 and 301 to counter Chinese steel dumping and intellectual-property theft—customs receipts ballooned from the historical $10–15 billion per year range to as high as $20–40 billion. Those tariffs temporarily super-charged Section 32, allowing USDA to deploy billions in ad-hoc Market Facilitation Program (MFP) payments to farmers harmed by retaliatory tariffs. Yet, that windfall came with a warning: tariff policy had become the heartbeat of food-security funding.
By 2025, the structure had grown even more dependent. The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)expansions that re-classified fentanyl-linked Chinese imports and certain strategic technologies effectively widened the tariff base to cover 50–70 percent of all Section 32 inflows. Treasury estimates put current receipts at roughly $25–30 billion annually, but only because those extraordinary duties remain in force. If the Supreme Court invalidates them—as petitioners argued in United States v. American Importers Association, now pending—Section 32’s engine stalls overnight.
THE REAL NUMBERS – WHY IS NO ONE TALKING ABOUT THIS
By February 2026, even without extraordinary obligations, Section 32 would have been expected to decline naturally into the critical range of five to ten billion dollars—a level that already triggers mandatory triage under the Antideficiency Act. But the Rhode Island court’s order changes everything. The directive to divert six to eight billion dollars per month from Section 32 to fund SNAP benefits accelerates that depletion exponentially. Instead of approaching the threshold by late winter, the fund would reach insolvency within weeks. What was once a gradual fiscal erosion becomes a freefall.
At current inflow rates, USDA would exhaust available cash by early January 2026, long before tariff receipts could replenish the account. Section 32 would effectively collapse under the weight of dual pressures: the Supreme Court’s impending curtailment of tariff revenues and the judiciary’s simultaneous mandate to finance an entitlement program it was never designed to sustain. Once the balance falls below operating minimums, USDA officials would face a legal impasse. The Antideficiency Act prohibits further spending without available funds, meaning the department would be compelled to halt disbursements not only for commodity purchases and farm stabilization programs but also for the National School Lunch Program, which relies on Section 32 transfers.
The result would be an unprecedented fiscal and humanitarian paradox: millions of households momentarily supported by emergency SNAP payments, even as the very programs that secure their long-term access to food—school meals, agricultural subsidies, and emergency commodity distributions—collapse from lack of funding. What began as a judicial attempt to relieve hunger would, in practical effect, dismantle the economic scaffolding that prevents famine.
THE PERFECT STORM
When the Antideficiency Act triggers, the unraveling begins almost instantly. Section 32 is not a symbolic account; it is the bloodstream of the nation’s food infrastructure. Every week that passes without replenishment forces USDA to make impossible choices between feeding children, stabilizing farm prices, or maintaining emergency reserves. As soon as balances dip below operational minimums, disbursements for the National School Lunch and Breakfast Programs are the first to falter. The vendors who supply schools with milk, produce, and grain stop receiving payments, and within a matter of weeks districts begin to scale back meals or suspend service entirely. That shock ripples outward. Food banks that rely on USDA commodities for distribution face abrupt shortages. Charities, already strained by rising demand, are left with empty warehouses.
At the same time, farmers begin to feel the second wave of the collapse. Without Section 32 purchases to absorb surpluses, commodity prices start to slide. What begins as a mild oversupply quickly becomes a market free fall. Perishable goods rot in storage, processors cut back orders, and smaller producers find themselves unable to cover transportation and fuel costs. The safety valve that has balanced farm incomes for nearly a century disappears overnight. Once production contracts, consumer prices begin to rise, not because of scarcity of land or labor, but because distribution breaks down. The shelves remain half-stocked not for lack of food but for lack of liquidity and logistical coordination—starvation by statute.
In this environment, SNAP benefits themselves lose effectiveness. Even as emergency funds reach recipients’ accounts, retailers face shrinking inventories and rising wholesale costs. A dollar of aid buys less with each passing week. The very act of diverting Section 32 to sustain SNAP triggers the inflation that renders those benefits meaningless. Within one fiscal quarter, the system consumes itself: the program designed to prevent hunger fuels the conditions that make hunger inevitable.
The pace of this manufactured famine would be unlike any natural disaster or wartime deprivation. It would not unfold over years, but in months, perhaps even weeks, because every mechanism of correction—appropriations, market support, and tariff revenue—would be locked behind the same legal wall. Congress cannot appropriate during a shutdown; the executive cannot spend without appropriations; and the judiciary, having ordered the diversion, can neither fund nor reverse the economic chain reaction it set in motion. The famine would be made not by drought or crop failure, but by the precise functioning of the law itself. The statutes designed to enforce fiscal discipline become instruments of deprivation.
In this perfect storm, legality and catastrophe merge. The courts, acting out of moral urgency, strip the government of its capacity to sustain the very programs their order sought to protect. The Treasury, deprived of tariff inflows, cannot refill the fund. The USDA, bound by the Antideficiency Act, cannot intervene. And Congress, immobilized by political paralysis, cannot reauthorize spending. The result is a bureaucratically engineered hunger—an outcome born of good intentions colliding with procedural rigidity. It is famine by design, executed through the machinery of compliance, a slow-motion collapse written not in violence or weather but in the fine print of the United States Code.
NATIONAL SECURITY RISK
The erosion of Section 32 is not merely a domestic policy failure; it is a national security breach hidden in plain sight. The United States has long treated food as a matter of commerce and welfare, but never as an instrument of defense. Yet food security underpins every other form of security. When a nation can no longer feed its population or stabilize its agricultural base, its sovereignty weakens more efficiently than through any foreign invasion. The structure of this collapse is so precise, so bureaucratically logical, that it resembles sabotage. No bombs, no cyberattacks, no propaganda—only statutes, court orders, and fiscal inertia quietly dissolving the backbone of the American food system.
Foreign adversaries understand this dynamic better than most domestic policymakers do. During the trade wars of 2018 and 2019, they learned how tariff volatility could ripple through Section 32 and destabilize farm aid. Those lessons were not forgotten. If the Supreme Court now invalidates the tariff regime that sustains Section 32, the blow will appear judicial, but its effects will echo geopolitically. Rivals who rely on exporting agricultural surpluses to the global market will watch U.S. production collapse under the weight of its own legal contradictions. They will not need to blockade ports or interfere with shipping lanes; the United States will do it to itself by starving the very mechanisms that move grain from field to table.
A hungry nation is a distracted nation. Economic distress at that scale fractures public trust, erodes labor stability, and invites foreign influence under the guise of relief. The vacuum left by a paralyzed USDA and an empty Section 32 would quickly be filled by external suppliers eager to dictate terms of trade. Grain, fertilizer, and commodity dependencies would shift overnight. A single ruling meant to protect vulnerable citizens could thus realign global power dynamics, with the United States losing the leverage that food abundance has always provided. The battlefield would not be overseas—it would be domestic, economic, and psychological.
A Replay of 2018–2019—on Steroids
This isn’t a theoretical projection. In 2018–2019, tariff whiplash already caused a 15 percent draw-down in Section 32 reserves, forcing USDA to delay promised farm-aid purchases for months. That episode was cushioned by subsequent tariff hikes that refilled the fund. This time, the situation is inverted: the judiciary may erase those very inflows while another judicial order simultaneously mandates emergency spending from the same account. One court opens the fiscal floodgates; another shuts off the supply line.
For adversaries who understand the mechanics, this is the perfect pressure point: by destabilizing U.S. trade revenues, they can indirectly cripple domestic food-security programs without ever touching a grain field. A Supreme Court refund mandate—if it went beyond a collection freeze to require rebates of duties already remitted—would accelerate collapse. Section 32 could be depleted within 30 days, leaving the United States with no mechanism to finance school meals, stabilize commodity prices, or respond to farm crises.
The Constitutional Irony
The irony is striking. A federal court, acting to prevent hunger in the short term, has ordered spending that could produce nationwide scarcity in the medium term. The separation of powers exists precisely to prevent such cascading consequences: Congress appropriates, the executive executes, and the judiciary interprets. When those lines blur—when the courts compel spending from a revenue stream dependent on tariffs that the Supreme Court might simultaneously strike down—the entire constitutional architecture trembles.
MY ANALYSIS
If tariff inflows collapse just as Section 32 outflows spike (by court order to fund SNAP), USDA will not only exhaust its reserves but also lack any replenishment mechanism. Congress could theoretically appropriate new funds, but during a shutdown or political stalemate, that relief would be delayed or impossible.
Once Section 32 is empty and SNAP still unfunded, USDA’s only recourse would be to stop commodity purchases altogether, leaving both producers and low-income consumers exposed. Farmers facing collapsed commodity demand would reduce planting; processors would cut output; food banks and schools would lose supply contracts.
That’s the recipe for what I call a manufactured famine — not famine in the traditional sense of no food existing, but famine through systemic scarcity, price shock, and distribution breakdown.
The U.S. food system’s resilience depends on multiple overlapping funding streams — SNAP, Section 32, child-nutrition transfers, and market-support programs. Using one to backfill another unravels that web.
This is why fiscal firewalling exists: Congress separates appropriations to prevent exactly this domino effect. When the judiciary orders a cross-purpose transfer, it may save one humanitarian crisis (hungry families this week) but trigger another (supply collapse and price spikes next quarter).
In constitutional terms, it’s the danger of judicially imposed fiscal prioritization — the court effectively decides which crisis matters most and redistributes public resources accordingly, without democratic deliberation.
If the executive complies and Section 32 collapses, the next administration may inherit a structurally weakened food-stabilization system, permanently compromising national food security. A judicial order compelling spending from Section 32 plus a concurrent tariff-revenue challenge — is creating a perfect storm. It weakens both the fiscal foundation and operational capacity of the U.S. food-supply chain.
The term “manufactured famine” isn’t hyperbole here. It’s a very realistic scenario of policy-driven scarcity: abundant agricultural capacity on paper, but no fiscal mechanism left to convert crops into affordable food or school-meal commodities.
This is why the separation of powers exists: not to obstruct compassion, but to protect the republic from the unintended consequences of unilateral action. The judiciary cannot appropriate; the executive cannot invent funds; and Congress cannot remain inert without endangering the nation itself. Only an immediate appropriations bill—restoring legal funding for SNAP while shielding Section 32 from further depletion—can halt the chain reaction already in motion. Every hour of inaction compounds the problem, shrinking reserves, weakening markets, and deepening the administrative paralysis that adversaries study and exploit.
If Congress fails to act, the famine will not announce itself with empty fields or mass exodus; it will creep through budget ledgers, supply contracts, and missing school lunches until hunger becomes routine and outrage fades into resignation. That is how empires decay—not through war, but through bureaucratic neglect dressed as lawful order. The choice now lies with the legislature. Either it restores the constitutional balance of power and secures the nation’s food supply, or it allows a court order and a legal technicality to achieve what no enemy army ever could: the quiet, lawful starvation of the United States from within.
History will not record this famine as an act of God or a failure of harvest, but as a decision rendered in chambers—a famine born of jurisprudence and procedure. It will mark the moment when a nation that could feed the world forgot how to feed itself. The laws meant to guard its solvency became the instruments of its hunger, and compassion unbound by prudence became the weapon that broke the spine of abundance. When the archives are opened and the record laid bare, the verdict will be simple: America was not conquered, nor collapsed—it was starved by its own design.
BOTTOM LINE
Pending litigation before the Supreme Court—United States v. American Importers Association—threatens that revenue. Petitioners argue that recent tariff expansions under IEEPA exceed statutory authority. A reversal would freeze or nullify billions in expected duties and, consequently, the Section 32 transfers that depend on them.
ENJOY THE SHOW>
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.
