The Democrats have failed to mount a serious response to Donald Trump’s authoritarianism. Their fecklessness has left the door open for democratic socialists like Zohran Mamdani to position themselves as the real opposition to Trump.

Shake Shack wants you to shit yourself to death (permalink)

Shake Shack has changed the terms of service for its app, adding a "binding arbitration" clause that bans you from suing the company or joining a class action suit against it:

https://shakeshack.com/terms-conditions#/

As Luke Goldstein writes for Jacobin, the ToS update is part of a wave of companies, including fast-food companies, that are taking away their customers' right to seek redress in the courts, forcing them to pursue justice with a private "arbitrator" who works for the company that harmed them:

https://jacobin.com/2025/10/shake-shack-arbitration-law-terms-service/

Now, obviously you don't have to agree to terms of service just to walk into a Shake Shack and order a burger (yet), but Shake Shack, like other fast food companies, is on a full-court press to corral you into using its app to order your food, even if you're picking up that food from the counter and eating it in the restaurant. This is an easy trick to pull off – all Shake Shack needs to do is starve its cash-registers of personnel, creating untenably long lines for people attempting to order from a human.

Forcing diners to use an app has other advantages as well. Remember, an app is just a website skinned in the right kind of IP to make it a felony to add an ad-blocker to it, which means that whenever you use an app instead of a website, you are vulnerable to deep and ongoing commercial surveillance and can be bombarded with ads without you having any recourse:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/01/24/everything-not-mandatory/#is-prohibited

That surveillance can be weaponized against you, through "surveillance pricing," which is when companies raise prices based on their estimation of your desperation, which they can infer from surveillance data. Surveillance pricing lets a company reach into your wallet and devalue your money – if you are charged $10 for a burger that costs the next person $5, that means your dollar is only worth $0.50:

https://pluralistic.net/2025/06/24/price-discrimination/

But beyond surveillance and price-gouging, app-based ordering offers corporations another way to screw you: they can force you into binding arbitration. Under binding arbitration, you "voluntarily" waive your right to have your grievances heard by a judge. Instead, the corporation hires a fake judge, called an "arbitrator," who hears your case and then a rebuttal from the company that signs their paycheck and decides who is guilty. It will not surprise you to learn that arbitrators overwhelmingly find in favor of their employers and even when they rule in favor of a wronged customer, the penalties they impose on their bosses add up to little more than a wrist-slap:

https://pluralistic.net/2025/08/15/dogs-breakfast/#by-clicking-this-you-agree-on-behalf-of-your-employer-to-release-me-from-all-obligations-and-waivers-arising-from-any-and-all-NON-NEGOTIATED-agreements

This binding arbitration bullshit was illegal until the 2010s, when Antonin Scalia authored a string of binding arbitration decisions for the Supreme Court, opening the hellmouth for the mass imposition of arbitration on anyone that a business could stick an "I agree" button in front of:

https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1443&amp%3Bamp%3Bcontext=blr

A fundamental tenet of conservative doctrine is "incentives matter" – that's why they say we can't have universal healthcare (if going to the doctor is free, you will schedule frivolous doctor's visits) or food or housing assistance (unless your boss can threaten you with homelessness and starvation, you won't go to work anymore). However, this is a highly selective bit of dogma, because incentives never seem to matter to rich people or corporations, whom conservatives are on an endless quest to immunize from any consequences for harming their workers or customers, which somehow won't incentivize them to hurt their workers and/or customers:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/06/12/hot-coffee/#mcgeico

At this point, we should probably ask, "Why would anyone sue a Shake Shack?" To answer that, you just need to look at why people sue other fast-food restaurants, like McDonald's and Chipotle. The short answer? Because those restaurants had defective food-handling and sourcing procedures, and this resulted in their customers contracting life-threatening food-borne illnesses:

https://apnews.com/article/mcdonalds-chipotle-taco-bell-norovirus-e-coli-83f1077981d738b91dbf0c76f7db2883

By immunizing itself from legal consequences for the most common sources of liability for fast-food restaurants, Shake Shack is reserving the right to make you shit yourself to death. Combine this immunity with Trump's unscheduled rapid midair disassembly of all federal regulations (AKA "Project 2025") and you get a situation where Shake Shack can just make up its own money-saving hygiene shortcuts, and face no consequences if these result in your shitting yourself to death. This is both literal and figurative enshittification.

Of course, Shake Shack doesn't believe this should cut both ways. You can't slip out of Shake Shack's noose by walking into a restaurant with a t-shirt reading:

By reading these words, you agree, on behalf of your employer, to release me from all obligations and waivers arising from any and all NON-NEGOTIATED agreements, licenses, terms-of-service, shrinkwrap, clickwrap, browsewrap, confidentiality, non-disclosure, non-compete and acceptable use policies ("BOGUS AGREEMENTS") that I have entered into with your employer, its partners, licensors, agents and assigns, in perpetuity, without prejudice to my ongoing rights and privileges. You further represent that you have the authority to release me from any BOGUS AGREEMENTS on behalf of your employer. This indemnity will survive the termination of your relationship with your employer.

Shake Shack isn't trying to create a simplified, efficient system of justice – they're creating a two-tiered system of justice. They get to go to court if you hurt them. Vandalize a Shack Shack restaurant and they'll drag your ass in front of a judge before you can say "listeria." But if they cause you to shit yourself to death, you are literally and figuratively shit out of luck.

That's really bad. Two-tiered justice is always and ever a prelude to fascism. The way to keep the normies in line while your brownshirts round up their neighbors and seize their property is by maintaining the "normal" justice system for some people, but not for the disfavored group:

https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/anti-jewish-legislation-in-prewar-germany

Gradually, the group entitled to "normal" justice dwindles and more and more of us get sucked into the "state of exception" where you aren't entitled to a lawyer, a trial, or any human rights.

Trump isn't just dismantling the regulatory state: his fascist snatch-squads ignore the Constitution and the courts. His supine Congress ignores the separation of powers (Trump: "I'm the President and the Speaker of the House"). This rapid erosion of the rule of law is about to meet and merge with the long-run, Federalist Society project to give corporations their own shadow justice system, where they hire the judges who decide whether you can get justice.

Oakland, CA – On October 23, Trump rushed over 100 federal agents, in a long-threatened “surge” operation, to occupy the San Fransico Bay Area. So, the Community Service Organization, the Oakland Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression, the Freedom Road Socialist Organization, and over 500 Oakland residents mobilized for an emergency “Ice Out of the Bay” rally and march to take the fight directly to ICE and Border Patrol at the U.S. Coast Guard base where they were stationed.

Trump had warned and later recanted the takeover of San Francisco, but no such promise was made to spare Oakland. The Interfaith Movement for Human Integrity was flashbanged, run over by Customs and Border Patrol trucks, and Reverend Jorge Bautistathe was shot in the face with pepper rounds at the bridge connecting Oakland to the Coast Guard base island.

A mile away, in the plaza of the Fruitvale district, home to Oakland’s largest Chicano/Latino community, protesters gathered in the afternoon. Danny Celaya, with the Community Service Organization of Oakland, started the program by welcoming supporters and introducing speakers.

Romaine Charite, who represented the Oakland branch of the National Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression, started with a speech calling the president’s assault on the birthplace of the Black Panther Party “An attack on democratic institutions, an attack on the Chicano/Latino movement for legalization, and an attack on the political power of African Americans who are fed up with white supremacy.” Charite also tied the use of federal agents to crush the Black Liberation Movement, such as during the George Floyd Uprisings under Trump’s last term.

Eve Wallace from the Oakland district of the Freedom Road Socialist Organization said, “It is only through our commitment, our bravery to stand up against oppression, and our willingness to build organizations of working-class people to fight back will we ever achieve our shared liberation.”

After the speeches, the people took to the streets, marching half an hour to the military base to the chorus of “Raza si, Migra no!” and “All power to the people. No human is illegal,” with cheers and car honks from neighbors.

The community then came face-to-face with the Coast Guard, who were already lined up and armed along the entrance of the bridge. ICE was suddenly nowhere to be seen. The tense two-hour standoff had protesters screaming at the soldiers who were part of the attacks earlier in the day aiding ICE. Several times, the troops attempted to isolate and push back protesters. They failed, as Oaklanders in their hundreds grew too large and ungovernable. As night fell, the Coast Guard retreated far back into the bridge. The crowd cheered, “We’ll be back.”

The next morning, the city’s mayor, Barbara Lee, confirmed that Trump’s operation was canceled for the entire San Francisco Bay Area.

Anti-abortion advocates haven’t just played key roles in rolling back abortion rights in recent years. They also helped tank President Donald Trump’s campaign-trail promise to make in vitro fertilization free.

That’s according to a new report published Saturday in Politico, which reveals that anti-abortion activists—some of whom are opposed to IVF because it involves discarding unused embryos—spent more than a year lobbying the Trump campaign, and then his administration, to ensure that officials did not subsidize or mandate coverage of the procedure. They got their wish earlier this month, when the president announced a far more limited initiative: a cost-cutting agreement with a leading fertility medication manufacturer to slash prices on a drug involved in the IVF process. Trump also announced the creation of a new fertility insurance benefit that employers could voluntarily offer to employees.

“There were letters and meetings and calls—a lot of activity,” Kristi Hamrick, vice president for media and policy at the anti-abortion group Students for Life of America, told Politico. “We told [the administration] that it would be an absolute violation of people’s conscience rights to force taxpayers to subsidize IVF, which has the business model that destroys more life than is ever born.”

Anti-abortion advocates had long been vocal about their opposition to Trump’s promises to promote IVF. After his February executive order—which claimed to expand access to the procedure but merely required an official to gather ideas on how to do so, as I reported at the time—several leading abortion opponents decried the move. But the Politico story indicates that anti-abortion advocates’ involvement in scaling back the administration’s moves on IVF was greater than previously known.

“A lot of people met with different people within the administration over the last eight months to say, ‘This is not pro-life. This is not going to raise birth rates. This pumps money into an industry that a lot of pro-lifers have great concerns over, because of the potential for eugenics. So let’s tap the brakes on this,'” Patrick Brown, a fellow at the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center, told Politico.

Beyond the Ethics and Public Policy Center and Students for Life of America, other anti-abortion groups that were reportedly involved in pressuring the administration include Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America and Americans United for Life. Those groups did not immediately respond to requests for comment from Mother Jones on Sunday.

According to Politico, White House officials also gave the advocates a heads-up before Trump’s announcement of his IVF policies:

In a sign of how seriously they took the groups’ arguments, administration officials held a briefing call for a select group of activists ahead of last week’s announcement to address their fears of a coverage mandate. According to two anti-abortion advocates on the call, granted anonymity to discuss the private event, the White House did not take questions.

A White House official, granted anonymity to speak candidly about behind-the-scenes conversations, confirmed both the call and the key role anti-abortion groups played in developing the policy. Their influence ensured that no employer is obligated to cover IVF, that no federal funding supports it, and that new coverage options can include alternative fertility treatments promoted by groups who oppose abortion.

“It’s providing flexibility, not just in an ideological sense, but just in a medical sense,” the official said. “It would be bad policy just to push everyone onto IVF.”

Spokespeople for the White House did not immediately respond to Mother Jones.

Politico reports that anti-abortion advocates also pushed the White House Domestic Policy Council—which was tasked with coming up with suggestions to deliver to the president—to back “restorative reproductive medicine” (RRM), a loose group of approaches that allegedly tackles the root causes of infertility, as my colleague Kiera Butler wrote last year. Leading medical organizations have said that RRM is not evidence-based and that it is not a distinct concept, but instead a repackaging of work that fertility doctors already do to support patients.

During Trump’s Oval Office announcement, officials did not explicitly reference RRM, but they—including Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.—did repeatedly say that they plan to address “the root causes” of infertility. An expert on IVF access who did not want to be named for fear of retribution previously told me they were concerned by these mentions: “On the one hand, we were happy because they didn’t say ‘restorative reproductive medicine.’ And on the other hand, we were concerned because they said ‘root causes’ several times.”

But for all the administration’s attempts to pander to every conceivable interest group, it could not manage to make everyone happy. Some on the left said that there was more Trump could do to expand access to IVF and that the announcement amounted to a failure to deliver on his campaign pledge.

On the anti-abortion side, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops called Trump’s announcement a “harmful government action” that could “push people of faith to be complicit in its evils.” Lila Rose, head of the anti-abortion group Live Action, said on X that Trump’s announcement is “not a solution to fertility struggles.” And Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life, called the announcement a “disappointment.”

Friends,

The resistance is becoming an uprising.

Last Saturday, more than 7 million of us poured into the streets to reject Trump’s dictatorship. That’s more than 2 percent of the adult population of the United States.

Historical studies suggest that 3.5 percent of a population engaged in sustained nonviolent resistance can topple even the most brutal dictatorships — such as Chile under Pinochet and Serbia under Milosevic.

Which means we’re almost there.

Other evidence of the backlash is all around us. Seven of the nine universities Trump selected to join his extortion compact — offering preferential treatment for federal funds in exchange for a pledge to support his agenda — have rejected it.

Most major airports have refused to show Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s propaganda video attacking Democrats for the government shutdown.

Almost all of America’s news outlets have refused to sign Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s media loyalty oath.

Trump’s destruction of the East Wing of the White House (after promising he wouldn’t) and posting an AI video of himself shitting on America is causing even loyal Trumpers to worry he’s losing his marbles.

I believe future generations will look back on this scourge and see not just what was destroyed but also what was born.

Even prior to Trump, American democracy was deeply flawed. The moneyed interests were drowning out everyone else. Inequality was reaching record levels. Corruption — legalized bribery through campaign contributions — was the norm. The bottom 90 percent were getting nowhere because the system was rigged against them.

Many of you are now sowing the seeds of fundamental reform.

Whether it’s demonstrating as you did last Saturday, appearing at Republican town halls, jamming the Capitol and White House switchboards, generating mountains of emails and letters, protecting the vulnerable in your communities, or going door-to-door for candidates like Zohran Mamdani, your activism is paying off.

The backlash against Trump is growing. His approval rating has sunk to a level not seen since Richard Nixon last sat in the White House, according to the latest Gallup poll, out Wednesday.

These are terrible times — the worst I’ve lived through, and I’ve lived through some bad ones. (Remember 1968? Nixon’s enemies list? Anyone old enough to recall Joe McCarthy’s communist witch hunts?)

But as long as we are alive, as long as we are resolved, as long as we are taking action to stop the worst of this, as long as we are trying to make America and the world even a bit better — have no doubt: We will triumph.

This story may be characterized as Corporate Power is Protected as defined in The 14 Characteristics of Fascism

This story may be characterized as Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights as defined in The 14 Characteristics of Fascism

The Department of Homeland Security has sent unaccompanied immigrant teenagers $5,000 fines for illegally entering the United States, according to youth advocates and fine notices reviewed by New York Focus and The Intercept.

Roughly 10 teenagers in New York, ages 14 to 17, received the fine in mid-October, said Meena Shah, managing director of the Legal Services Center at The Door, a New York City-based nonprofit that serves young people. At least one teenager in Michigan has received the fine too, according to the teen’s lawyer. New York Focus and The Intercept reviewed copies of the fine notices delivered in both New York and Michigan.

The fine is one of several new financial penalties for immigrants created by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that President Donald Trump signed in July. The federal government is issuing the fines under a section of the law titled “Inadmissible alien apprehension fee,” which is set at $5,000 and can be applied to people apprehended between official ports of entry. Homeland Security’s application of the fine hasn’t been previously reported.

Shah and Ana Raquel Devereaux, the attorney representing the teenager in Michigan, both said the kids are living in shelters overseen by the federal Office of Refugee Resettlement, or ORR, which takes custody of unaccompanied immigrant children while they wait to be released to an adult sponsor.

Devereaux, who works for the Michigan Immigrant Rights Center, pointed out that kids in government custody have no ability to work.

“It’s really about creating fear,” Devereaux said. “There’s no way that a child in this situation would be able to pay this, and the penalties are so severe.”

Minors in Texas and Pennsylvania have received the fines too, according to a staff member at a national nonprofit who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the nonprofit’s leadership fears being targeted by the Trump administration.

[

The fine is one of several ways the Trump administration has sought in recent weeks to pressure minors who entered the U.S. alone to return to their home countries. Over Labor Day weekend, the government attempted to deport dozens of unaccompanied Guatemalan children who were in ORR custody; kids were loaded onto planes before a judge halted the plan. In early October, the government said it was offering $2,500 to unaccompanied minors 14 years and older who agree to leave the country.

The notices reviewed by New York Focus and The Intercept state that “Payment in full is due now” and list an array of potential consequences for failure to pay, including collection litigation and negative impacts on their immigration cases. Fines that aren’t paid in full will accrue interest, the notices say.

“They’re trying to pressure and coerce these young people into taking voluntary departure,” Shah said. “These are the stressors you’re putting very young kids under.”

Border Patrol teased the apprehension fee in a September 24 Facebook post, which included a megaphone emoji and said anyone 14 years or older could be fined. Money collected from the fines will be credited to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, according to the text of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

Other fees created by the new law include $100 to apply for asylum, plus $100 every year the application is pending; $550 for asylum-seekers to apply for a work permit; and $5,000 for anyone ordered removed in absentia and then arrested by ICE. Lack of clarity over exactly how and when to pay the $100 fees recently sparked panic among asylum-seekers in New York and a flood of misinformation and potential scams, New York Focus recently reported.

In response to questions about the $5,000 fee being applied to minors, the Department of Homeland Security referred New York Focus and The Intercept to a press release about a different fee of $1,000 for immigrants paroled into the U.S. The agency did not respond to follow-up questions.

Supporters of the fine argue that it will incentivize people to cross at legal entry points rather than traverse dangerous desert terrain and take up Customs and Border Protection resources. Andrew Arthur, a fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies, a think tank that advocates for restrictions on immigration, said he understood the argument that a teenager won’t be able to pay a $5,000 fine, but said their parents or relatives would then be on the hook.

“This isn’t, you know, ‘We want to punish 14-year-old kids,’” Arthur said. “This is, ‘We want to discourage parents from paying smugglers to bring their kids to the United States.’” [

It’s unclear how many immigrants have received the $5,000 fine. Several attorneys who work with unaccompanied minors in New York and other states told New York Focus they’d heard about the fines secondhand but hadn’t seen any cases personally. All of the cases New York Focus and The Intercept were able to verify involved teenagers in ORR custody, but advocates said they had heard of minors outside of federal custody receiving the fines.

Under Trump, the number of unaccompanied children crossing the border and entering ORR custody has plummeted. In September, about 2,000 kids were in ORR custody on average, down from more than 6,000 last October.

Theo Liebmann, a law professor at Hofstra University who runs a legal clinic for immigrant youth, said unaccompanied kids in ORR custody are particularly vulnerable because they often don’t have lawyers, having recently arrived in the U.S.

Liebmann, who doesn’t have any clients who have received the fine, said it appeared to be an effort to “go after the kids who are especially defenseless and won’t be able to understand how to look at this threat, how real this threat is, and what they can do in response.”

An archaeologist who spent years documenting the recovery of ancient artifacts looted by ISIS in Syria and Iraq is shocked by Trump’s wanton destruction.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is trying to force Meta to unmask the identity of the people behind Facebook and Instagram accounts that post about Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) activity, arrests, and sightings by claiming the owners of the account are in violation of a law about the “importation of merchandise.” Lawyers fighting the case say the move is “wildly outside the scope of statutory authority,” and say that DHS has not even indicated what merchandise the accounts, called Montcowatch, are supposedly importing.

“There is no conceivable connection between the ‘MontCo Community Watch’ Facebook or Instagram accounts and the importation of any merchandise, nor is there any indicated on the face of the Summonses. DHS has no authority to issue these summonses,” lawyers with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) wrote in a court filing this month. There is no indication on either the Instagram or Facebook account that the accounts are selling any type of merchandise, according to 404 Media’s review of the accounts. “The Summonses include no substantiating allegations nor any mention of a specific crime or potential customs violation that might trigger an inquiry under the cited statute,” the lawyers add.

A judge temporarily blocked DHS from unmasking the owners last week.

“The court now orders Meta [...] not to produce any documents or information in response to the summonses at issue here without further order of the Court,” the judge wrote in a filing. The move to demand data from Meta about the identities of the accounts while citing a customs statute shows the lengths to which DHS is willing to go to attempt to shut down and identify people who are posting about ICE’s activities.

Montcowatch is, as the name implies, focused on ICE activity in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. Its Instagram posts are usually titled “Montco ICE alert” and include details such as where suspected ICE agents and vehicles were spotted, where suspected agents made arrests, or information about people who were detained. “10/20/25 Eagleville,” one post starts. “Suspected dentention [sic] near Ollies on Ridge Pike sometime before 7:50 am. 3 Agents and 3 Vehicles were observed.”

The Instagram account has been posting since June, and also posts information about peoples’ legal rights to film law enforcement. It also tells people to not intervene or block ICE. None of the posts currently available on the Instagram account could reasonably be described as doxing or harassing ICE officials.

On September 11, DHS demanded Meta provide identifying details on the owners of the Montcowatch accounts, according to court records. That includes IP addresses used to access the account, phone numbers on file, and email addresses, the court records add. DHS cited a law “focused on customs investigations relating to merchandise,” according to a filing from the ACLU that pushed to have the demands thrown out.

“The statute at issue here, 19 U.S.C. § 1509, confers limited authority to DHS in customs investigations to seek records related to the importation of merchandise, including the assessment of customs duties,” the ACLU wrote. “Identifying anonymous social media users critical of DHS is not a legitimate purpose, and it is not relevant to customs enforcement.” As the ACLU notes, a cursory look at the accounts shows they are “not engaged in commerce.” The court record points to an 2017 Office of the Inspector General report which says Customs and Border Protection (CBP) “regularly” tried much the same thing with its own legal demands, and specifically around the identity of an anonymous Twitter user.

“Movant now files this urgent motion to protect their identity from being exposed to a government agency that is apparently targeting their ‘community watch’ Facebook and Instagram accounts for doing nothing more than exercising their rights to free speech and association,” those lawyers and others wrote last week.

“Movant’s social media pages lawfully criticize and publicize DHS and the government agents who Movant views as wreaking havoc in the Montgomery County community by shining a light on that conduct to raise community members’ awareness,” they added.

The judge has not yet ruled on the ACLU’s motion to quash the demands altogether. This is a temporary blockage while that case continues.

The Montocowatch case follows other instances in which DHS has tried to compel Meta to identify the owners of similar accounts. Last month a judge temporarily blocked a subpoena that was aiming to unmask Instagram accounts that named a Border Patrol agent, The Intercept reported.

Earlier this month Meta took down a Facebook page that published ICE sightings in Chicago. The move came in direct response to pressure from the Department of Justice.

Both Apple and Google have removed apps that people use to warn others about ICE sightings. Those removals also included an app called Eyes Up that was focused more on preserving videos of ICE abuses. Apple’s moves also came after direct pressure from the Department of Justice.

Montcowatch directed a request for comment to the ACLU of Pennsylvania, which did not immediately respond.

Photo: Lindsey Nicholson/Universal Images Group/Getty Images

For much of the country, excluding federal employees, the government-shutdown crisis gripping Congress has been a distant battle between politicians indulging in their usual partisan squabbles. No matter who they blame for the shutdown, regular people don’t appear to be that engaged. An Economist-YouGov survey released earlier this week showed about three-fourths of Americans saying the shutdown has affected them “a little” or “not at all.”

That’s about to change. Yes, some effects of the shutdown will gradually manifest themselves, particularly the missed paychecks for federal employees (e.g., active military servicemembers) who haven’t been protected by questionably legal diversion of funds by the Trump administration. But on November 1, assuming (as is wise) that the shutdown doesn’t somehow end before then, a double whammy is going to strike large swaths of the country. First, SNAP benefits are going to run out in at least half the country, as Politico reports:

Millions of low-income Americans will lose access to food aid on Nov. 1, when half of states plan to cut off benefits due to the government shutdown.

Twenty-five states told POLITICO that they are issuing notices informing participants of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — the nation’s largest anti-hunger initiative — that they won’t receive checks next month. Those states include California, Alabama, Arkansas, Hawaii, Indiana, Mississippi and New Jersey. Others didn’t respond to requests for comment in time for publication.

USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service recently told every state that they’d need to hold off on distributing benefits until further notice, according to multiple state agencies.

And it could quickly get worse:

Under SNAP, which serves more than 42 million people, families receive an average of $187.20 per month to pay for groceries. The pause in benefits would kick in just before the Thanksgiving holiday and add further strain on food banks and pantries during a typically busy season.

Second, November 1 marks the beginning of “open enrollment” season for the 24 million Americans, many of them middle class, who get their health insurance via Obamacare’s private-sector marketplace. Most of them will get a nasty shock when they realize (a) premiums are going up by double-digit percentages in most places and (b) their out-of-pocket costs will more than double on average if the “enhanced premium subsidies” for these policies enacted in 2021 expire at the end of the year. Congressional Democrats are, of course, demanding some action be taken to extend these subsidies before they supply the votes necessary to reopen the federal government, while Republicans have said they won’t negotiate over the subsidies until the government is reopened. But what probably seemed like an abstract argument until now is going to be a very big “kitchen-table issue” once people realize they may need to pay more than twice as much for the sketchy but essential health-insurance coverage Obamacare provides. And as with the SNAP cuts, the impact could quickly be compounded over time, since many healthier people will likely go without insurance, making the risk pool for Obamacare policies shakier and the costs more expensive.

The other thing that’s going to happen on or soon after November 1 is Donald Trump’s claim that the shutdown just affects “Democrat things” will be exposed as not only cruel but completely inaccurate. OMB director Russell Vought has added to the pain of the shutdown in blue cities and states with selective shutdowns of programs and projects. But as Toluse Olorunnipa explains at The Atlantic, “the pain for the president’s supporters will increase significantly if the lapse in government funding continues into November”:

Farmers, a key constituency for Trump, are among those getting hurt. The Department of Agriculture halted crucial farm aid just as planning for the 2026 planting season was getting under way. Furloughs and mass layoffs, meanwhile, have decimated a small-business-lending program popular in rural communities. Federal subsidies keeping small-town airports afloat are scheduled to run out within days. And despite what Trump might suggest, the majority of the federal employees who are currently going without a paycheck live outside of the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area. Trump-friendly West Virginia, for instance, has among the highest number of government workers per capita in the country.

The above-mentioned Obamacare subsidy expiration will also create some specific red-state carnage, since reliance on Obamacare markets for health insurance is significantly greater in those red states that refused the Affordable Care Act’s optional Medicaid expansion.

So how will the November developments affect the battle in Congress? Clearly, heat on Republicans to negotiate over the Obamacare subsidies is going to increase significantly with both sides anxiously waiting to see if a very disengaged Trump notices the political risk and imposes a deal on his Obamacare-hating troops. If that doesn’t happen, though, some Democrats may conclude they’ve achieved a political victory by pinning higher health-care costs (both the Obamacare premium spike and the One Big Beautiful Bill Act’s Medicaid cuts) on the GOP, and can now vote to reopen the government.

In other words, it’s unclear the standoff will be resolved soon, but it is clear Americans will start paying a lot more attention to it.

This story fits the Fraudulent Elections characteristic of fascism as defined in The 14 Characteristics of Fascism

This story fits the Fraudulent Elections characteristic of fascism as defined in The 14 Characteristics of Fascism