News & Politics

Since President Donald Trump's return to the White House nine months ago, his administration has — with the help of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) — brought mass layoffs to a variety of federal government agencies, from the National Weather Service (NWS) to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). And Trump has toyed with the idea of eliminating the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) altogether.

Another is the U.S. Social Security Administration (SSA), which, according to Washington Post reporters Meryl Kornfield and Hannah Natanson, has become increasingly difficult to deal with.

In an article published on October 28, Kornfield and Natanson report, "Hours-long wait times. Endless looping music. Useless robot messages. Millions of seniors and disabled people call Social Security’s 1-800 number every month. What they experience is often maddening."

Trump claims that the downsizing of federal agencies is targeting "waste, fraud and abuse," but critics of the mass layoffs argue that his administration is making a range of agencies less efficient — including the SSA.

"The Trump Administration has said it is improving Social Security customer service and dramatically cutting wait times to build on a phone experience that callers have complained about even before Trump," Kornfield and Natanson explain. "But the agency's public reporting doesn't count the time people wait for callbacks from humans, and nearly three dozen callers who spoke with The Washington Post or let a reporter join their calls said their experiences have not matched the agency's claims. The average wait time for a callback peaked at about 2½ hours from January to March, according to internal agency data obtained by The Post."

The Post reporters add, "The average time dropped to about an hour since July, when the agency added more field office workers to the 1-800 number, even as the agency has sought to reduce its workforce by thousands."

Kornfield and Natanson's article is accompanied by actual recordings of frustrated seniors struggling to get help from the downsized SSA.

"Shelley McLean, a 68-year-old technical writer from Brookhaven, New York, had been waiting for months for $31,000 that Social Security owed her in attorney fees as part of a disability case," the Post journalists report. "She called on a Friday in August to check on it and was told her hold time would be 110 minutes. McLean ended up getting a callback about 200 minutes later, after she already had personal plans and couldn't answer the phone.… In Upland, California, last spring, 72-year-old Kathy Stecher began the process of applying for benefits."

Kornfield and Natanson continued, "On her first attempt, an automated voice told the retired public schoolteacher that the wait time would extend more than 120 minutes. Trying to be patient, she hung on — only for her call to be dropped after more than an hour. Determined to get her benefits, she kept trying. For the next four days, she phoned once a day. She called early, she called in the middle of the morning, and she called in the afternoon."

Read Meryl Kornfield and Hannah Natanson's full Washington Post article at this link (subscription required).

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) continues to ruffle MAGA feathers as she did on Tuesday's House Republican conference call, during which she warned that President Donald Trump is losing support over healthcare battle, according to two different reports.

Capitol Hill reporter Juliegrace Brufke reported on X that, according to a source on the call, "Marjorie just got on and s—— all over House Republicans and said Trump is getting less popular because we aren’t fixing Obamacare.”

Punchbowl News founder Jake Sherman corroborated Brufke's story, also posting on X that Greene "just said that she is tired of people listening to the White House political staff. MTG said that Thune needs to use the nuclear option and reopen the government. (In other words, abolish the filibuster and pass a funding bill)."

Sherman said House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) was miffed, saying "Johnson was a bit displeased with this comment and suggested that [Greene] should not complain about House Republicans 'online.'"

"How does that help us, Marjorie" Johnson asked Greene, according to Sherman.

These reports come as Greene grows increasingly vocal and critical of the Republican party, telling Semafor in an interview last week that "I can’t see into the future, but I see Republicans losing the House if Americans are continuing to go paycheck-to-paycheck."

The Daily Beast reports that Greene's condemnation of Trump and the party is winning her support as MAGA chooses her side over the president's.

“I love her because she’s a voice for the people,” said Elizabeth Fielden, a Republican from Ringgold, GA in an interview with Bloomberg.

Republicans on the call, however, were divided.

According to Brufke, as "MTG was pushing to get rid of the filibuster," some callers were "disagreeing with MTG."

Liberal activist who goes by the handle Sundae Divine noted that Greene's transformation from MAGA hardliner to MAGA critic is acrobatic.

"Some politicians flip-flop. Marge cartwheels," she wrote.

Historically, U.S. presidents have made a clear distinction between how they speak at partisan campaign rallies and how they sound during speeches for members of the U.S. Armed Forces. A speech at West Point Military academy, for example, would have a much different tone from a campaign speech.

But MSNBC's Steve Benen, in his October 28 column, warns that President Donald Trump is violating a "foundational bedrock principle" when he angrily rages against political foes during military speeches that sound a lot like MAGA rallies.

"When the Republican meanders his way through partisan red meat when speaking at a political rally," Benen observes, "it's tiresome but predictable. When he delivers the same message to active-duty military personnel, it's a qualitatively different kind of story."

The "Rachel Maddow Show" producer offers specific examples.

"In June, for example, Trump spoke at Fort Bragg and treated U.S. troops like they were just another MAGA audience, even goading troops to boo (former President) Joe Biden, the free press and American elected officials whom the president doesn't like," Benen observes. "A report in The Bulwark described the display as 'grotesque.' Three months later, he did it again, summoning the nation's generals and admirals to listen to him ramble about tariffs, the Nobel Peace Prize, his hatred for Democrats, his contempt for independent news organizations and his belief that his 2020 election defeat was 'rigged.' A week after that, speaking at an event honoring the U.S. Navy’s 250th anniversary, Trump appeared determined to turn military personnel against the parts of the country he doesn’t like."

Benen continues, "'We have to take care of this little gnat that's on our shoulder called the Democrats,' he said. Speaking to U.S. soldiers aboard the USS George Washington in Yokosuka, Japan, the Republican did it once again. The New York Times noted, 'Trump has been doing this more often at home lately, but it is still striking to see him basically holding what looks and sounds very much like one of his signature political rallies in front of members of the United States military.'"

Benen notes a recent warning from The Atlantic's Tom Nichols, who believes that Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth are "making a dedicated run at turning the men and women of the armed forces into Trump's personal and partisan army."

"While I understand the underlying point about conditions that are becoming more routine, this cannot become our 'new normal,'" Benen argues. "An apolitical military is a foundational, bedrock principle of the United States. Partisan, ideological and electoral considerations must be utterly irrelevant to what the military is and how it functions. It is a principle for which Trump appears to have no use."

Steve Benen's full MSNBC column is available at this link.

A report in the International Business Times exposes "deep fractures" inside the American right leading to an "explosive MAGA civil war," redefining what it means to be pro-Trump in 2025.

On the frontlines of the battle are neo-Nazi Nick Fuentes, conservative activist and so-called "MAGA whisperer" Laura Loomer, and former Fox News host Tucker Carlson, who are clashing "over ideology, influence and control of the MAGA base."

The trio's public rift has, writes Times' Marie Joy Toledo, exposed "deep rifts between extremist activists and conservative media figures who once shared similar political goals."

Tensions between Fuentes, whose "rhetoric has repeatedly drawn condemnation for being antisemitic and extremist," and Loomer, who is Jewish, escalated following the death of activist Charlie Kirk.

Loomer labeled Fuentes a "mentally ill lunatic," accusing him of "sabotaging conservative unity," Toledo says. Fuentes, who is banned from most platforms, retaliated with a video in which he accused Loomer of "attention-seeking and of betraying the movement's grassroots."

"Their falling-out now symbolises a growing divide between the online far-right and those seeking mainstream acceptance within the MAGA movement," Toledo writes.

Former Fox host Carlson has also been clashing with Fuentes, the report says, describing him as as 'angry' and 'child-like' while distancing himself from his extremist views.

Carlson, Toledo says, "represents the mainstream conservative establishment that Fuentes routinely attacks, highlighting the widening rift between populist media figures and online radicals."

These splits and feuds are a reflection of a "broader civil war within the MAGA coalition," Toledo says, with Fuentes's influence among young Republicans driving a "generational split on the American right."

"His rhetoric, coupled with his attacks on figures such as Carlson, highlights an attempt to redefine what it means to be pro-Trump in 2025," Toledo says.

Loomer, on the otherhand, "continues to position herself as a defender of Trump's image against what she calls 'toxic fringe elements'. Her feud with Fuentes has reignited debates about loyalty, legitimacy and who gets to speak for the MAGA movement," Toledo explains.

This, she writes, has split conservative media and the MAGA base.

"Supporters of Fuentes praise him as a truth-teller unafraid to criticise powerful figures, while detractors argue that his inflammatory rhetoric risks alienating mainstream voters," Toledo says.

Yet, Carlson's followers, she writes, "see his restraint as evidence of leadership amid growing extremism. Political analysts note that these public clashes reveal a deeper struggle over the future of Trump-aligned conservatism, one that may reshape the right long after the shouting stops."

An Oklahoma State University professor says that the reality of who will be impacted the most by President Donald Trump's cutting off of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is not good news for the president.

Writing in The Root, Lawrence Ware, the co-director of the Africana Studies program at Oklahoma State University, says that the benefits expected to expire on Saturday aren't most used by those whom Trump and his base think.

Ware says the "MAGA faithful condemning 'lazy, shiftless' Black folks who need to 'get a job' instead of mooching off of hard-working (white) taxpayers" is "a tune that’ll never stop playing." It's also wrong.

"When we consider which demographic will suffer the most from the SNAP cutoff, there’s an inconvenient truth that the red hat wearers probably aren’t ready to hear," he writes.

While approximately 42 million Americans are expected to suffer from this cutoff, Ware notes that "it’s not just Democrats that will be impacted by this. Nor is it just Black folks. Americans of every race and political persuasion will be affected."

Ware also dispels the stereotype popularized by Ronald Reagan during his 1976 presidential campaign to criticize social programs, exaggerating the story of a real-life Chicago woman, Linda Taylor, to suggest that welfare fraud was rampant and widespread among recipients, particularly women of color.

"But despite Reagan going on about welfare queens and attempting to make it look like Black folks were the only ones who used these benefits, the reality of who this will impact the most may surprise you," he says.

White Americans are the largest racial group participating in the SNAP program, Ware explains.

"In fact, over 35 percent of the people on the program are white. What’s more, Texas, Louisiana and Florida, all red states, have some of the highest numbers of people living there who rely on the SNAP program," he says.

He also says the government shutdown is entirely on Trump and the Republican party and it is incumbent upon them to make a deal.

"And unlike last month where President Trump was able to find money to pay the military, the administration warned lawmakers in a memo Friday it could not and would not seek access to a range of emergency funds to extend SNAP. That is cold. Even for them," he writes.

"Just in time for the holidays, the most vulnerable among us will lose their ability to feed their families," he adds. "This is not a political issue. It is a question of human decency."

During a recent opening sketch on "Saturday Night Live," two former cast members — Amy Poehler, the guest host, and Tina Fey — brutally mocked U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Poehler played Bondi, while Fey played Noem; during their parody, they lampooned ICE recruitment efforts and the Trump Administration's standards for new recruits.

Poehler and Fey weren't subtle, sending out a message that Trump officials, in their push to expand ICE, are lowering hiring standards considerably.

John Pfaff, a law professor at Fordham University in New York City, makes a similar argument in a scathing op-ed published by MSNBC on October 28.

Despite lowering its hiring standards and getting a "surge in funding," Pfaff laments, ICE is struggling to find as many recruits as Noem and President Donald Trump want to hire.

"One of the signature provisions of the giant spending bill that congressional Republicans passed back in July was an astounding increase in the budget for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE," Pfaff observes. "The bill allocated $170 billion over four years to the Department of Homeland Security, with $30 billion earmarked for ICE, making it arguably the most well-funded of all the federal law enforcement agencies. The surge in funding was intended in no small part to help ICE hire 10,000 more enforcement officers by the end of 2025, which if achieved, would more than double their numbers, from roughly 6000 to about 16,000."

Pfaff continues, "But just because an agency wants to increase staffing, that doesn't mean it will be able to do so easily, and I predicted back in July that ICE would likely struggle to meet this goal…. Moreover, the current surge in ICE hiring comes at a time when local police forces — many of which pay better, have better working conditions (such as staying close to home) and broader social support and respect — struggle, along with almost all other government agencies, to fill open positions."

ICE, Pfaff observes, is alienating police departments by urging police officers "to leave their current jobs to sign on" with the agency. And according to Pfaff, "many of the recruits ICE is getting are not up to the task."

"Compounding all of this is the fact that the goal is a net increase of 10,000 officers, and there are already growing reports of stress and burnout among ICE officers," the Fordham law professor laments. "And no wonder: they're often finding themselves deployed in cities that aggressively protest against them, and assigned to tasks — such as arresting day laborers outside of Home Depot — that pale in comparison to the overwrought rhetoric of saving the U.S. from murderers and terrorists…. None of this is to downplay the very real harm that ICE is doing. And while the low quality of ICE recruits is making it harder for them to hit their target, it also means that the ones they do hire are likely to be less qualified, and thus more likely to do even more harm when deployed."

Pfaff continues, "But it is clear that Trump and his immigration consigliere, Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, hope to build up ICE as a way to strike out at Democratic cities, and the ongoing struggles to hire more people suggest that goal may prove elusive."

John Pfaff's full op-ed for MSNBC is available at this link.

After almost a month, the partial shutdown of the United States' federal government drags on as Democratic and GOP lawmakers continue to fight over a spending package. And Democrats are warning that access to two crucial safety-net programs — the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and the Affordable Care Act of 2010, a.k.a. Obamacare — is on the line.

One of the people who is sounding the alarm is liberal economist Paul Krugman, who fears that many Americans could lose access to both food and health care if those programs are not adequately funded by Congress soon.

In an October 28 column posted on his Substack page, Krugman lays out four takeaways from the "hunger games" being played by President Donald Trump and his Republican allies in Congress.

"While in in the checkout line," the New York City-based Krugman explains, "I often see some patrons, typically elderly and/or disabled, paying with EBT cards. EBT cards are the way the government delivers food aid under the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program, formerly known as food stamps. SNAP has become a crucial part of America's social safety net, with more than 40 million Americans relying on those EBT cards to put food on the table. And unless the government shutdown ends this week, which seems basically impossible, federal support for SNAP will be cut off this Saturday (November 1)."

Krugman's takeaways are: (1) "This is a political decision — specifically, a Republican decision," (2) "The pain from lost food aid will, if anything, hurt Republican voters worse than Democrats," (3) "Despite what Republicans believe, SNAP recipients aren’t malingerers," and (4) "Food stamps are an investment in the future."

"Why are Republicans hostile to a program that benefits tens of millions of Americans?," Krugman argues. "Pay attention to right-wing rhetoric about food stamps, and you'll hear again and again assertions that SNAP beneficiaries are lazy malingerers — the 'bums on welfare' who should be forced to go out and get jobs. But that myth is punctured by a quick look at who gets SNAP. The fact is, the great majority of SNAP recipients can't work: 40 percent are children; 18 percent are elderly; 11 percent are disabled."

Krugman adds, "Furthermore, a majority of recipients who are capable of working do work. They are the working poor…. Which brings us back to the impending cutoff of SNAP. It's gratuitous: Republicans could easily avoid this cutoff if they wanted to. It's cruel: Millions of Americans will suffer severely from the loss of food aid. And it's destructive: Depriving children, in particular, of aid will cast a shadow on America's economy and society for decades to come. So of course the cutoff is going to happen."

Paul Krugman's full Substack column is available at this link.

MSNBC host Lawrence O'Donnell accused CNN of hiring a "paid liar" for President Donald Trump in a scathing rebuke of the network's controversial conservative contributor, according to The Daily Beast.

O'Donnell tore into CNN's "Trump-supporting CEO Mark Thompson" and singled out the network's Scott Jennings for "his unscrupulous views," they report.

"Everyone who remains has become much more careful in anything they might even think of saying about Donald Trump,” O’Donnell said on "The Last Word."

Jennings, in particular, O'Donnell noted, is someone who CNN “eagerly pays to lie every day and every night for Donald Trump."

And while Jennings emerged on TV as a more moderate conservative, over time, O'Donnell noted, he has become less moderate and more MAGA.

"When he first started appearing on television, he was capable of criticizing some of the more extreme Trump positions. But Scott Jennings figured out where the money is, and how he could get his own podcast, and decided to become the JD Vance of CNN," O'Donnell said.

Thompson has defended Jennings as "good TV" despite, The Daily Beast says, "being the object of ridicule during his many appearances on the network."

"Scott’s like d’Artagnan. He’s got his sword out and he’s got about four Democrats against him, but he spiked them all off,” Thompson said, comparing Jennings to the protagonist of the Three Musketeers.

“That’s much more like it. I think he’s a worthy opponent, as it were, for the Democrats in the room. And it makes not just good television, but also, in some ways, a slightly deeper testing of the ideas all the way around the table," Thompson said.

O'Donnell used his own show's ratings to dispel that rationale, saying, "Here’s how bad that television is that they make over there. The show that Scott Jennings frequents the most is on opposite this program. And that show, on a good night, gets half the audience of this show.“

"This program usually has an audience triple the size of the terrible, terrible television that Scott Jennings is delivering on the absurdly degraded version of CNN, presided over by the man who thinks lying for Donald Trump on TV is an honorable pursuit," O'Donnell said.

Jennings laughed it off on X, saying, " “No, Lawrence, I don’t have time to save your show.”