During the most recent shutdown in 2018-2019, contingency funds kept SNAP payments going. This time, there was nothing left to tap. And today marks the first lapse in benefits in the program’s six-decade history.

The USDA still holds roughly $5 billion to $6 billion in contingency funds, but it says it can’t legally use that money to cover regular benefits. In a memo from Oct. 24, 2025, the department wrote:

“SNAP contingency funds are only available to supplement regular monthly benefits when amounts have been appropriated for, but are insufficient to cover, benefits. The contingency fund is not available to support FY 2026 regular benefits, because the appropriation for regular benefits no longer exists.”

This distinction matters because even if the USDA could access the fund, it wouldn’t nearly be enough. The fund is $3 billion less than the roughly $9 billion required to cover a full month of benefits.

Earlier this fall, the agency briefly suggested the money could be used to keep benefits funded during a lapse, noting that “these multi-year contingency funds are also available to fund participant benefits in the event that a lapse occurs in the middle of the fiscal year.”

That language was later removed from its official shutdown plan.

Now, states and food banks are left scrambling to fill the gap. There’s no reimbursement process in place for states that might try to cover the cost on their own.

The USDA memo explicitly stated:

“There is no provision or allowance under current law for States to cover the cost of benefits and be reimbursed.”

After I posted about writing this story, I started hearing from people directly affected.

One woman told me her father is losing his SNAP benefits. He’s been too sick to work while undergoing cancer treatment and has been calling the Department of Children and Families to figure out what happens next. She said he’s been stretching what little money he gets from the state, searching for cheaper food, but it still isn’t enough to cover rent, bills or groceries.

Another person who reached out said she’s homeless but working full time, living in a hotel, and using EBT to cover food so she can keep one expense off her paycheck. Since the shutdown began, she’s been trying to save what she can, but as she put it, “it’s hard to save when you live in a hotel, pay to get to work and back, and still need to buy food for a week or two.” She told me she also has a one-year-old and helps feed her younger siblings when her mom, who’s recovering from a work injury, can’t.

These two stories show how quickly a political debate turns personal. For people already juggling rent, work, and food, there’s nothing left to fall back on when the safety net gives out.

By the end of the week, the fight over food aid had reached the courts.

On Thursday, a federal judge in Boston, Indira Talwani, signaled she might intervene after questioning the Trump administration’s refusal to use emergency funds for SNAP. Less than 24 hours later, her skepticism turned into action and joined by a second ruling hundreds of miles away.

In Rhode Island, Judge John J. McConnell ordered the administration to tap the USDA’s contingency fund and continue paying food stamp benefits during the shutdown, saying the government “must distribute the contingency money timely, or as soon as possible, for the Nov. 1 payments to be made.” Talwani issued her own order soon after, requiring the administration to explain by Monday how it would fund benefits for November.

Late Friday night, President Trump said on social media that his administration would provide the payments “once a federal court can clarify how we can legally supply the money,” but warned delays were still inevitable.

“It is already delayed enough due to the Democrats keeping the government closed through the monthly payment date,” he wrote, “and, even if we get immediate guidance, it will unfortunately be delayed while states get the money out.”

Even with the rulings, uncertainty remains. State officials say they have yet to receive instructions or funds, and advocates warn that millions of Americans could still face interruptions or reduced benefits in the days ahead.

“It does seem to me really clear what Congress was trying to do,” Talwani said. “What Congress was trying to do is protect the American people.”

She added bluntly:

“We’re not going to make everyone drop dead.”

Lawmakers are already trying to frame the story. Republicans are calling it fiscal responsibility. Democrats are calling it neglect. Both sides have talking points ready, but the reality looks different outside the Capitol. For people waiting on benefits that never came, the spin doesn’t matter.

A shutdown sounds like an abstract idea until it reaches the point where people feel it. The arguments in Washington always end the same way: someone at home trying to figure out how to make it work.

The longer this goes on, the harder it is to separate politics from daily life. Programs like SNAP are not theoretical. They are how millions of families buy groceries. When that disappears overnight, it doesn’t feel like a budget fight. To some, it screams instability.

Shutdowns are supposed to be leverage. They are meant to force a deal. But this one has done what they all eventually do — made regular Americans collateral in a fight they didn’t start.

The USDA can issue memos, and Congress can trade statements, but the reality is simple. The system broke, and the people depending on it were the first to notice.

What’s happening with SNAP is bigger than one agency or one program. It’s about how fragile everyday life becomes when government stops working the way it’s supposed to.

For the families I spoke with, this isn’t politics. It’s survival.

There’s a certain chaos that comes with breaking news. Phones buzzing, tabs multiplying, sources contradicting each other. You’re trying to make sense of it all while staying fast enough to matter.

I used to think covering breaking news meant being on 24/7 — that if I wasn’t the first to tweet or post, I was already behind. That mindset almost broke me.

Now, I work differently. I don’t chase every headline. I track the patterns behind them.

When a story breaks, I do three things immediately:

1. Pause. I take a minute before posting anything. That pause has saved me from spreading bad info more than once.

2. Scan. I check official statements, cross-reference at least two credible outlets, and skim what political actors are saying on social. Not for quotes — for framing.

3. Simplify. I write down what this story actually means for people, not politicians. That becomes my lead.

I don’t aim to be the loudest voice in the room. I aim to be the clearest.

Most people forget that news moves fast, but clarity lasts. I’d rather file one strong, verified piece than five rushed ones that fall apart a day later.

Here’s the truth: burnout in journalism isn’t just about hours. It’s about noise. When you drown in it, you stop hearing yourself think. That’s when the work loses its soul.

So I’ve built small habits that keep me sane:

• I mute trending hashtags until I finish my first draft.

• I schedule breaks. Even five minutes away from the screen.

• I remind myself that my readers don’t need me to post first. They need me to get it right.

If you’re someone trying to report, write, or just stay informed without losing your mind, then this is the balance. Stay curious. And remember that even in breaking news, silence for a second can be your strongest tool.

— Brandon

Buckingham Palace announced Thursday that the 65-year-old will now be known publicly as Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. The king has begun the legal and ceremonial process to remove his brother’s remaining titles, peerages and honors. That includes the Dukedom of York, which Andrew said he would stop using on Oct. 17, 2025, but still held officially until Thursday’s announcement.

Subscribe now

The move marks the latest and most decisive step in a years-long downfall, seeking to distance the Crown from the reputational damage caused by Andrew’s association with the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

The decision comes just weeks after the publication of a posthumous memoir by Virginia Giuffre, who accused Andrew of sexual assault — allegations he has repeatedly and vigorously denied.

“His Majesty has today initiated a formal process to remove the Style, Titles and Honours of Prince Andrew,” a palace statement said. “These censures are deemed necessary, notwithstanding the fact that he continues to deny the allegations against him.”

The palace also confirmed that Andrew will step away from his longtime residence, Royal Lodge on the Windsor estate and move to private accommodation.

Previously, Andrew was pressured by his mother, the late Queen Elizabeth II, to stop using his HRH style in any official capacity in January 2022. At that time, he was also stripped of his military affiliations and royal patronages.

However, Thursday’s announcement represents the first formal step toward removing the titles themselves, not just restricting their use.

The king’s decision is one of the strongest actions taken against a senior royal in modern history. Experts see it as a necessary step for the royal family to protect itself and its brand.

“This isn’t just a family drama; it’s about the country’s system,” said royal historian Dr. Anna Whitelock. “The king has acted as head of state, not as a brother. He is protecting the monarchy from a problem that became a serious danger to its dignity and public support.”

This kind of move has almost never happened before. The last time a British-born prince lost his titles was in 1919, when King George V used a special law to take titles from relatives who had sided with Germany during World War I.

Other royals have lost the “HRH” style. Diana, Princess of Wales, and Sarah, Duchess of York, lost theirs after their divorces.

Most recently, Prince Harry and Meghan agreed to stop using their “HRH” styles when they left their royal roles.

But Andrew’s case is different because his titles are in the process of being formally and completely revoked.

By losing his titles, Andrew’s public role as a royal is effectively gone. Many believe this shows King Charles wants a smaller and more accountable royal family. He has strong support from his son, Prince William, who reportedly saw his uncle as a continued risk to the family’s image.

The action was praised by political figures. U.K. Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy called it a “brave, important and right step” that sends a “powerful message” to victims of abuse.

Sigrid McCawley, a lawyer who represented Giuffre, called the king’s decision a “tipping point” and said, “The voice of Virginia Giuffre has changed history.”

Even without his titles, Andrew remains eighth in line to the throne. His place in the line of succession is determined by law and can only be removed by an Act of Parliament.

The move ends a long and painful chapter for the royal family. By taking action against his brother, King Charles showed that protecting the monarchy matters more than family ties.

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

I must say, this job is extremely fulfilling. I get to bring news to the world and inform the public on current events (which, by the way, I was never good on that subject in elementary school).

I’m what’s known as an independent journalist. I don’t work for any media outlet. Hopefully soon I will - that’s the dream! But for the time being, I work with no one, by myself.

With that said, my client is the public.

My goal as an independent journalist is to bring you the unbiased news you want (or don’t, but may need) to hear.

Sometimes it’s fun, other times it’s stressful. One day I’m writing about politics, the next it’s something completely random. You never really know what’s coming, which honestly keeps it exciting.

There are nights when I barely sleep because I’m watching stories break in real time, trying to make sense of what’s actually going on. Most recently, I’ve been covering President Trump’s trip to Asia. Which is 14 hours ahead of the United States. But I wouldn’t trade it for anything.

People ask me how I do it alone. The truth is, it’s definitely not easy. You have to be your own editor, writer, and fact-checker all at once. But it’s also freeing. I get to decide what matters. I get to decide how to tell it.

When I covered the No Kings protests in Saint Paul/Minneapolis, I was my own producer, cameraman, and reporter. All alone! I must say, it was very fun, and an amazing learning experience. But it was extremely difficult!

Every time I go out to cover something, I remind myself that someone, somewhere, is relying on me to get it right. That keeps me grounded.

Being an independent journalist isn’t about fame or views. It’s about doing the work because it matters. Because people deserve to know what’s really going on in the world.

It’s not always glamorous. Sometimes it’s just me, my camera, and my phone, trying to stay awake, typing fast, and making sure every word is correct. But every story, every post, every late night reminds me why I love this job.

Now I know The Life of a Journalist. And I’ll never know another.

As a student studying political communication and journalism, I’ve spent the last year and a half watching how elected officials talk during moments like this. What they say, how they say it, and how the public reacts. To me, this shutdown feels like a real-life case study.

I’m not someone working in a senator’s office or writing their public statements. I’m just a college student trying to figure out how messaging works when the stakes are high and patience is thin. The way I see it, the fight isn’t really about budgets or bills. What really matters is who gets to shape the story and control the narrative.

The Narrative

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) has spent most of the shutdown pushing one message: the House did its job, and it’s the Senate’s fault the government is closed. He’s calm when he says it, almost like he’s rehearsed it, knowing that cable news will pick it up and run the clips.

“It would do us no good to pass another CR out of the House because it will meet the same fate,” Johnson told reporters. “Chuck Schumer and the Senate Democrats want to close the government down.”

It’s short and easy to repeat, which makes it effective for people who already agree with him. But when I listen to it, it sounds like someone trying to win a messaging war.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has taken a different approach, one that’s more dramatic and emotional.

“Donald Trump is causing the shutdown,” Schumer said. “He is using the American people as pawns, threatening pain on the country as blackmail.”

This kind of quote feels written for the evening news. Direct, dramatic, and meant to touch the emotions of the public.

Both of them are trying to frame the same event in completely different ways. Johnson wants to sound steady and in control. Schumer wants to sound human and frustrated. And in the middle of it all are millions of Americans just trying to get through the week without missing a paycheck.

When you’re studying this stuff, professors often mention “framing theory.” It’s the idea that whoever defines the story first usually controls how people see it. Watching this play out in real time makes that concept click. Listening to these statements, it feels like everyone’s trying to change public opinion, but not many are actually succeeding.

What I’m Learning

What I’m learning from all of this is that political communication isn’t just about what gets said. It’s about timing, tone, and how something sounds to people who aren’t paying close attention. The first headline, the first quote, and the first clip on social media are usually the ones that stick the longest.

In class, it’s easy to talk about theory. You learn terms like “message discipline” and “agenda setting,” but when you watch it unfold in real life, it feels a lot messier. Real people are stressed without paychecks, and politicians are performing for cameras while trying not to look like they are.

This shutdown has made me think a lot about credibility. You can have the best talking points in the world, but if the public doesn’t believe you mean what you’re saying, it doesn’t matter. The more I study this, the more I see that communication and trust are basically the same thing.

I don’t have a polished takeaway yet. I’m still figuring out what makes a message land and what makes it fall flat. But watching all of this as a student has made one thing clear to me: in politics, how something is said often matters just as much as what’s being said.

Brandon Doggett is a political communication and journalism student writing about media, messaging, and power.

Leave a comment

Two clips — one showing Porter clashing with a CBS reporter and another showing her snapping at a staffer during a recorded event — have gone viral and reshaped the narrative around her campaign.

The CBS Interview

The first incident came during a sit-down interview with CBS News Sacramento’s Julie Watts. The conversation began like every other interview she had done with California’s gubernatorial candidates but took a sharp turn when Watts asked Porter how she planned to appeal to Californians who voted for Donald Trump.

Porter grew irritated and dismissed the question, saying, “If it’s me versus a Republican, I think that I will win the people who did not vote for Trump.” Watts followed up, reminding her that if her opponent in the general election was another Democrat, then she would need some Trump voters.

After accusing Watts of being “unnecessarily argumentative,” she threatened to end the interview.

“I don’t want to keep doing this,” Porter said. “I’m going to call it.”

Watts noted that all 11 other candidates had been asked the same follow-up questions, to which Porter snapped, “I don’t care. I don’t care.”

In an awkward end to the interview, Porter added, “I don’t want to have an unhappy experience with you. And I don’t want this all on camera.” CBS aired the interview Oct. 6, and the clip went viral.

The 2021 Zoom webinar

Barely a day after the CBS interview aired, a second video surfaced showing Porter in a harsher light. In an exclusive video obtained by Politico from July 2021, then-Rep. Porter lost her temper at a staffer during a virtual event with Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm discussing electric vehicles.

In the middle of the discussion, a staff member entered the frame to correct one of Porter’s statements. Porter abruptly stopped, glared off-camera and exploded in anger.

“Get out of my f—ing shot,” she yelled. “You were also in my shot before that. Stay out of my shot!”

The outburst was nothing short of shocking. Porter had visibly berated her staffer in front of a Biden Cabinet official. The newly released video fed a narrative that Porter’s temper with her team matched what viewers saw with the CBS reporter. In response to the video resurfacing, Porter issued an apology.

“It’s no secret I hold myself and my staff to a high standard,” she said to Politico. “I have sought to be more intentional in showing gratitude to my staff for their important work.”

The damage was already done. This was the second clip of Porter losing her cool in two days. If either incident happened on its own, it might have been survivable. But together, they paint a portrait of a candidate who is under immense pressure and is struggling to manage it.

What’s next for Porter?

Going forward, Katie Porter’s campaign faces steep challenges. These viral clips have altered how both voters and the media view her temperament. This perception could dominate media coverage in the coming weeks, as the possibility for more clips like these may emerge.

Her apology and explanation may help neutralize some of the backlash, particularly in her core base, but she will need sustained messaging and more disciplined appearances to rebuild trust.

Her opponents are almost certain to seize on the clips, framing them as proof that Porter lacks the steadiness and temperament needed for higher office.

Former California State Controller and Democratic gubernatorial candidate Betty Yee has publicly called on Porter to drop out of the race.

“Katie Porter is a weak, self-destructive candidate unfit to lead California,” Yee said in an X post. “The stakes are simply too high for her to stay in this race.”

Porter’s team must be ready with rapid responses and contrasting clips that emphasize her leadership style and ability to govern under stress.

Optics matter, especially as Porter and the race are receiving increased press scrutiny. Every misstep will be magnified. It is possible for Porter to pivot the narrative. She can lean harder into policy proposals and showcase moments of empathy to counterbalance these viral moments.

However, in the high-stakes setting of a California governor’s race, perception often turns fast. The momentum she once held has slowed. Porter must prove that she can withstand intense scrutiny without cracking.

The governor’s race is far from over, but Katie Porter’s margin for error is gone. A series of steady and disciplined appearances could revive her bid, but one more misstep could end it.

In an environment that’s not particularly known for welcoming young voices, Karoline Leavitt’s rise to press secretary at age 27 shows that it is possible to get on that White House podium as a young person and answer questions from the most seasoned White House reporters, such as FOX News’ Peter Doocy or CNN’s Kaitlan Collins.

It’s incredibly inspiring to watch someone who is merely seven years older than me take on the senior most communication position in the White House. She didn’t wait until she was in her fifties like Karine Jean-Pierre or Sean Spicer, both of whom are previous press secretaries for the Biden and first Trump administrations, respectively.

Leavitt was the founder of the broadcasting club at her university, Saint Anselm College in New Hampshire. She also wrote at the school’s newspaper. In her sophomore year, she interned at WMUR, an ABC affiliate in Manchester, New Hampshire.

She then moved on to an internship in the White House Office of Presidential Correspondence. In an April 2025 interview with Kate Mackz, she stated that she “literally applied on WhiteHouse.gov and filled out the application.” After graduating in 2019, she was offered a full-time position in that same office, and became its associate director in June 2020.

After President Trump’s failed campaign bid in 2020, she became the communications director for New York representative Elise Stefanik mere weeks before Trump left office. Leavitt had a run for office of her own, that she ultimately lost, for New Hampshire’s First Congressional District in the House of Representatives.

Following her failed congressional bid, she began working as a spokesperson for Trump’s own super PAC, MAGA Inc., and in January 2024 was named the press secretary for Donald Trump’s 2024 election campaign. After Trump won the election in November, it was announced that she would serve as his White House press secretary.

Karoline Leavitt’s story challenges a doubt that I have quite often, which is whether my age will keep me from being taken seriously. I sometimes wonder if people will only see me as a student, or someone who is “on the way” but never quite there yet.

You don’t have to agree with all (or any) of Leavitt’s politics to see the true value of her story. Hell, I don’t agree with everything she says. But I fully respect her drive that led her to where she is today, because what really matters is the example she is setting for young people like myself. It’s never “too soon” to get started.

She proves that it is possible to stand at the intersection of power and press in your twenties. For someone like me, writing pieces for fun while dreaming of newsrooms and press briefings, her ambition is nothing short of inspiring.

Her record-setting age is not just a headline to me; it’s a reminder. Ambition doesn’t have a minimum age. Anyone with Leavitt’s kind of drive can go farther and faster than the world expects.

The Precursor to AIPAC

The American Zionist Council (AZC) was the original pro-Israel lobbying group that was founded in 1949, one year after the secular State of Israel was formed. The Council was tax-exempt, overarching body for many different Zionist groups in the United States. Within the Council, there was a branch called the American Zionist Committee for Public Affairs, which would oversee lobbying in Washington. This was created in 1951 by Isaiah L. Kenen. In 1954, AZCPA was then separated from the AZC, as leaders did not want tax-exempted funds to be used for lobbying purposes.

At this point, the American Zionist Committee for Public Affairs is detached from the American Zionist Council and was an independent organization. The AZCPA began broadening its scope to encompass all Jewish organizations, not just Zionist organizations. It was at this time, in 1959, that the AZCPA was formally renamed to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which in turn cemented the commitment to defending Israel beyond just Zionism.

The Foreign Agents Registration Act

Better known as FARA, the Foreign Agents Registration Act was enacted in 1938, requiring foreign agents, defined as individuals or entities engaged in domestic lobbying or advocacy for foreign governments, to register with the Department of Justice and publicly disclose their finances, activities and relationships.

It’s important to note that this law does not ban lobbying on behalf of a foreign government, but rather promotes transparency in regards to foreign influence on US politics.

Both the Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations heavily scrutinized the activities of the American Zionist Council, particularly its financial ties to Israel through the government-funded Jewish Agency for Israel. In 1962, attorney general Robert F. Kennedy ordered the AZC to register under FARA. After President John F. Kennedy’s assassination, and conveniently for the AZC, Lyndon B. Johnson’s administration decided not to enforce the order.

Due to its plummeting credibility and a refusal to formally register under FARA, the American Zionist Council ceased to exist in 1966.

A Rising Influence in Washington

The reason that AIPAC is not required to register under FARA is because it is structured in a way that allows it to be designated a domestic lobbying group — similar to that of the National Rifle Association (NRA) and big pharma — and therefore cannot be classified as a foreign agent. Unlike the AZC, AIPAC is not funded by the Israeli government, but instead by American donors, most of whom are Jewish.

Even though AIPAC is legally a domestic lobbying group, their core mission has always been to advocate for policies that will strengthen Israel’s security and promote pro-Israel positions in U.S. foreign policy. This is a loophole explains why AIPAC is able to avoid registering under FARA, making it one of the most influential and controversial lobbying organizations in the country.

After the American Zionist Council dissolved in 1966, AIPAC very quickly became the primary pro-Israel lobbying group. The influence of AIPAC grew substantially after two major conflicts in the Middle East. The Six-Day War of 1967 reshaped the image of Israel in the eyes of policymakers in the United States, as the once small and vulnerable state established itself as a formidable and capable military power after defeating Egypt, Jordan and Syria. At the time, Egypt and Syria were aligned with the Soviet Union. Israel’s success showed Washington that it could serve as a strategic ally to the United States as a way to counter Soviet influence. AIPAC was able to capitalize on this victory by lobbying for increased aid to Israel, framing it as a moral obligation and strategic necessity.

On the Jewish holiday Yom Kippur in 1973, Soviet-backed Egypt and Syria, along with a coalition of Arab nations, launched a coordinated surprise attack on Israel. The United States provided an emergency airlift of weapons and supplies to support Israel, known as Operation Nickel Grass. While Israel ultimately gained back the territory they had lost and some, this situation highlighted the dependence that Israel had on the United States.

For AIPAC, this moment was pivotal as it provided them the leverage to argue in Washington that protecting Israel was not only a strategic necessity, but also a defense of what it framed itself as, “the only democracy in the Middle East.”

AIPAC’s Influence on Bipartisan Politics

Unlike many special interests groups, like the NRA, big pharma, and the Farm Bureau, that align themselves with one party, AIPAC has consistently supported both Democrats and Republicans, in an indirect way. The organization itself does not donate to campaigns, rather it coordinates a network of political action committees and individual donors who channel their contributions to candidates on both sides of the aisle.

This sort of bipartisan funding approach gives AIPAC an extraordinary leverage in Congress. Politicians on both sides know that AIPAC has the means to mobilize financial and grassroots support for those who back their agenda, while those who oppose it risk facing a well-funded challenger in their next primary.

In the 2023-2024 election cycle, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA) received $618,530 from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which makes pro-Israel interests one of his top funding sources. On the other side of the aisle, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) also received a hefty $866,550 from AIPAC.

Representative Thomas Massie (R-KY) said in an interview with Tucker Carlson, “Everybody but me has an AIPAC person … you go have lunch with them, they’ve got your cell number, and you have conversations with them.”

While Massie states that he is less familiar with know how it works on the Democrats’ side, it can be assumed that AIPAC embeds itself in a similar manner on the left. By developing relationships across party lines, AIPAC can ensure that its positions on policy are heard regardless of who is in power.

The fall of the American Zionist Council under FARA should have been the end for foreign-backed lobbying for Israel in our nations’ capital. Instead, AIPAP found a loophole that shaped itself as a “domestic” lobbying group. But it’s not domestically focused, it’s Israeli focused. AIPAC adapts to any party in power, because they support all of them. They have ensured its influence endures regardless of the political landscape.