$10 million in Trump food aid cuts to CT ‘cruelty for cruelty's sake,' senators say
Two U.S. senators are fighting to help Connecticut farmers and schools avoid more than $10 million in federal cuts from President Donald Trump's administration.
Notices have been sent out about the cuts for two programs that affect farmers and consumers who are struggling to find affordable food.
Some families have had difficulty paying $9 for a dozen eggs at a time of continuing inflation. Many working families are struggling to balance their budgets and 470,000 residents of Connecticut are classified as 'food insecure' in a sharp jump from last year, officials said.
'People are working. That's not the issue,' said Jason Jakubowski, president of FoodShare, a nonprofit that distributes food across the state. 'They have two, sometimes three jobs, but it's hard to make ends meet in today's world. … We live in a world where a box of Twinkies is cheaper than a bushel of apples.'
Jakubowski stepped forward Monday at a press conference in Bloomfield with U.S. Sens. Chris Murphy and Richard Blumenthal about cuts being made by Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency to the Local Food for Schools Program, known as LFS, and the Local Food Purchase Assistance Program, known as LFPA.
The LFPA program covers 516 food distribution facilities, such as homeless shelters and food pantries across the state. The food comes from 131 small Connecticut farms that will be impacted, officials said. In addition, the state is expected to lose $5 million that allows public schools and day care centers to buy fresh food from local farms.
Overall, Connecticut is expected to lose at least $10 million with direct impacts starting by July 1, officials said.
'Contrary to popular conservative impression, the folks who line up for food assistance in this state are almost universally folks that are working,' Murphy told reporters at the Foodshare warehouse. 'The problem in this state is not employment. We're at near full employment. The problem is that work doesn't pay in this country. The cost of living is too high. Wages have been flat for too long. You can be working fulltime, and you can be working two jobs and not have enough money to pay the bills, to be able to put food on the table.'
When compared to the annual federal budget deficit and the even larger accumulated national debt of $36 trillion, Murphy said that the food cuts do not make much economic sense.
'This is cruelty for the point of cruelty,' Murphy told reporters. 'These are relatively small programs that go a long way toward both supporting farmers and supporting families. By ending these two programs, all you're doing is hurting farmers and jeopardizing the food security of our families.'
Murphy added, 'These programs don't save big amounts of money for the federal government. They don't balance the budget. They are effective, efficient and affordable programs that help families in need. This is obviously a really dire moment in which the president is willfully violating the Constitution and ignoring spending decisions made by Congress and intentionally throwing this country into economic and political crisis just for the sake of crisis.'
Similar cuts are taking place across the country. In Massachusetts, Gov. Maura Healey decried the cuts.
'Donald Trump and Elon Musk have declared that feeding children and supporting local farmers are no longer 'priorities,' and it's just the latest terrible cut with real impact on families across Massachusetts,' Healey said in a statement. 'Trump and Musk are continuing to withhold essential funding in violation of court orders, and our children, farmers and small businesses are bearing the brunt of it.'
Chuck Schumer postpones book tour amid liberal criticism over spending vote
Like other cuts, the latest rescissions will be challenged in the federal courts, Blumenthal predicted.
'Donald Trump and Elon Musk threaten to Make America Hungry Again,' Blumenthal told reporters. 'They're not eliminating waste. They are laying waste' to programs.
In a related matter, both Murphy and Blumenthal said that they still support U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York as the Democratic minority leader after bitter disputes last week over whether to allow a government shutdown. In a battle with Trump, Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives banded together to oppose a 'continuing resolution' to keep the government running, which was passed by the Republican-controlled House.
In the Senate, it was expected at one point that the Democrats would block the resolution because Trump needed 60 votes to break a filibuster. Schumer originally opposed Trump on the issue, but then he switched sides when he said that a government shutdown would give more power to Trump than allowing the continuing resolution to proceed.
In the end, Schumer's small group prevailed, even though the majority of Senate Democrats voted the other way.
'Being leader is a tough job. I don't envy Senator Schumer,' Murphy said. 'I said yesterday, and I said today that I continue to support Senator Schumer, but I want to see our tactics change. I want to see us fight harder. I want to see us take real risks to fight for our democracy. I don't think the American public would have blamed a shutdown on Democrats.'
Blumenthal agreed, saying, 'I am going to be very vocally insistent on a stronger voice and a more battle-ready stance for our entire caucus.'
Christopher Keating can be reached at ckeating@courant.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How Europe could go ‘Mega' by 2027
Poland's new president is a Trump-inspired nationalist. The government in the Netherlands has just been felled by an anti-migrant firebrand. Right-wing parties are already in government in Hungary and Italy, and in Berlin, the far-Right Alternative for Germany (AfD) is the main opposition after it was endorsed by JD Vance and Elon Musk in the February elections. As Europe begins a cycle of crucial elections over the next two and a half years, the radical insurgent Right has the momentum. By 2027, there could be eight nationalist prime ministers in the 27-member-strong European Union, which has already swung to the Right. Meanwhile, Donald Trump's White House is determined to 'Make Europe Great Again'. Allies in the right places could prove very useful to Mr Trump, who accuses the EU of trying to 'screw' the US on trade and through the regulation of American technology firms. If 2027 is the year Europe does indeed go 'Mega', there will be serious ramifications for EU policies on migration, Ukraine and net zero, as well as a push to assert national leadership over Brussels. Experts believe this week's win in Poland and ructions in the Netherlands will bolster the 'Mega' wing in Europe with proof of concept. 'I don't believe in domino effects, but I do believe in a demonstration effect,' said Pawel Zerka, a senior policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations think tank. In other words, people in other countries are aware of and influenced by politics elsewhere. 'The biggest demonstration effect is coming not from other European countries, but from the US,' he said. 'The election of Donald Trump gives a legitimacy boost and a confidence boost to plenty of the far-Right parties across Europe and their electorates.' Many of the parties had 'ever tighter links to the Maga movement' and 'practical support' to get better results, he said. Geert Wilders led his Party for Freedom (PVV) to the hard-Right's first-ever general election win in November 2023. But the 'Dutch Trump' was forced to sacrifice his dream of being prime minister in coalition talks after his shock victory on a platform of 'zero asylum'. This time, he would become prime minister, he told reporters in The Hague, as he vowed to once again defeat the establishment conservative and Left-wing parties in October. The shock-headed populist may struggle to repeat the trick, or to find willing coalition partners, after toppling the government for not backing his hardline migration plans. Current polls have him with a narrow lead of one percentage point over the Left-wing GroenLinks-PvdA. But Mr Wilders was enjoying highs of 50 per cent before forming a coalition government that struggled to implement its strictest ever asylum policy. He is banking on those numbers recovering, and White House officials have already made clear he has Mr Trump's backing. With enough vote share, he could form a new conservative coalition with the pro-business VVD, provided it also posts strong results. Tellingly, its leader has not yet ruled out a second alliance with Mr Wilders. Mr Trump hosted Karol Nawrocki at the White House before the Law and Justice-backed former historian won a knife-edge victory on June 1. The role of president is largely ceremonial in Poland, but it comes armed with the power of veto over new legislation. Law and Justice (PiS) won the popular vote (35.4 per cent), but fell short of a majority at the last general election in Poland. Donald Tusk, who won 30.7 per cent of the vote, cobbled together a large and unwieldy centrist coalition to take power. Since then, prime minister Tusk has sought to steer Poland back to the European mainstream. His reforms, including the liberalisation of some of Europe's strictest abortion laws, are set to be frustrated by Mr Nawrocki's vetoes. Mr Tusk has called for a vote of confidence on June 11 to shore up his restive coalition, which is trailing PiS in the polls. Even if that passes, it looks very unlikely his government will survive to the end of its term in 2027, and while it is unclear who the PiS's candidate could be in the next general election, a hard-Right prime minister is not unlikely. Businessman turned politician Andrej Babis is leading in the surveys – consistently polling about 30 per cent – ahead of October's general election in the Czech Republic. The last election saw him lose to a Conservative-Liberal coalition by just a handful of votes. Babis's party, ANO, obtained 27.13 per cent of the vote, while Spolu, which leads the coalition of the current government, won 27.79 per cent of the vote. If he scrapes together a few more votes, the populist will become prime minister for the second time. During his first spell in office, he donned a Trump-style red baseball cap. A Babis victory would mean that he, and potentially Mr Wilders, would join the highly influential European Council, which meets regularly in Brussels to give the EU institutions political direction. At present, the hard-Right have Italy's Giorgia Meloni and Hungary's Viktor Orban in the room, but their numbers could double by the end of the year to include Mr Babis and Mr Wilders. Mr Orban nailed his colours to Mr Trump's mast a long time ago and is a darling of American conservatives. The EU's longest-serving prime minister is looking to win a fifth consecutive term in office in elections in 2026. In 2022, his party obtained 54.13 per cent of the vote – the highest vote share obtained by any party in Hungary since the fall of Communism in 1989. His policies, such as laws insisting Hungary only legally recognises two genders, have drawn praise and emulation from Maga supporters. But he has angered Western EU member states by opposing sanctions on the Kremlin and banning gay pride marches. Mr Orban is currently the most vocal nationalist leader in calling for pan-European alliances of hard-Right parties to radically reform the EU. His party is in a European Parliament alliance with the parties led by Mr Wilders, Marine Le Pen, Ms Meloni's coalition partner Matteo Salvini, and Spain's Vox. Prime minister Ulf Kristersson's coalition is propped up by the hard-Right Sweden Democrats, which remains formally outside of government despite coming second in a 2022 election dominated by fears over immigration and crime. The far-Right nearly doubled their vote share between 2014 and 2022, from 12.86 per cent to 20.54 per cent, which is largely down to the Sweden Democrats. The Sweden Democrats have exerted considerable influence over the government and its agenda. The question is whether voters will give Jimmie Akesson enough of a mandate to finally bust the taboo that has so far kept a party partially founded by Nazi sympathisers from being formally in government. Giorgia Meloni has emerged as a genuine stateswoman since she took power in 2022, and experts believe her example of government has made the hard-Right in Europe more credible. She has kept her Right-wing coalition together, which is no easy task in Italy. She positioned herself as a mediator between the EU and Mr Trump while successfully spearheading a drive to get Brussels' tacit backing for offshore migrant detention camps. Thanks to her, the Italian hard-Right's vote share has risen from just 1.97 per cent in 2013 to 27.2 per cent in 2022, and she will be optimistic of another victory in 2027's general election. She has much in common politically with Mr Orban, but they are divided over Ukraine, which has split the European hard-Right. She shares a European political party with Poland's Law and Justice, which is hawkish on Russia and will be contesting the general election in 2027 if Mr Tusk's vote of confidence passes next week. Spain's conservatives won the popular vote – 33.1 per cent – in the last general election, but fell short of a majority. Their potential coalition allies, Vox, the far-Right and Trump allied nationalists, underperformed, obtaining just 12.4 per cent of the vote. That opened the door for socialist prime minister Pedro Sanchez to assemble an extremely broad coalition of the centre-Left, communists and Catalan and Basque separatists. Polarised Spain's culture wars have only got worse in the years since the 2023 election and the start of the divisive Mr Sanchez's second term. The pardoning of Catalan separatists and political discussions with former terrorists, as well as corruption allegations about his wife and allies, could cost him in 2027. Emmanuel Macron called snap parliamentary elections, effectively daring the French to hand over power to the hard-Right, after Marine Le Pen's National Rally defeated him in the European Parliament elections last summer. National Rally did not get a majority, after a group of different parties united to keep out the hard-Right. But Mr Macron's party lost its majority in the National Assembly and has been a lame duck domestically ever since. Head of the largest single party in France, Ms Le Pen is well positioned for presidential elections in 2027, in which Mr Macron cannot stand. But Ms Le Pen was banned from running for the presidency in March after being found guilty of embezzlement. It drew immediate comparisons to the 'lawfare' waged on Mr Trump, who offered his support. She is appealing, but her protege Jordan Bardella will run in her stead if necessary. Polls are showing that either could win against Gabriel Attal, a contender to succeed Mr Macron as candidate – if they were to run. Ms Le Pen would beat him 53 per cent to 47 per cent, Bardella by 52 per cent to 48 per cent. The question is whether the 'front republican' will once again emerge in the second round of the presidential elections to keep the National Rally from power. Or, as it did this week in Poland, fall just short. The election of a Eurosceptic leader to the presidency of France, the EU's most influential member state alongside Germany, would be a political earthquake that would shake Brussels to its core. Andre Krouwel, who teaches political science at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, said the populist parties in Europe were comparing notes as they plotted their routes to power. He said: 'They use the success and failure of other parties to learn from and use in campaigns. You see a lot of copying of strategies, such as victim playing or attacking so-called elites.' In general, traditional parties had an advantage in their experience and ability to govern, he added. Mr Wilders' decision to pull the plug on his coalition was an example that proved populists were 'good at saying things, not doing them.' The parties were also 'super-unstable' and given to infighting. For Prof Krouwel, the rise of the populist Right across Europe has its roots in economic anxiety as well as fears over immigration. 'There was always an expectation that your children will do better than you. You can't say that now,' he said, adding that Dutch children were staying home far longer because they can't afford to move out. 'We are all becoming southern Europe and that is an explanation for the populist surge,' he said. Maria Skora, visiting researcher at the European Policy Centre think tank in Brussels, said there were certain broad trends common to many EU countries where the hard Right was on the rise. There have been 15 years of difficulties, including the eurozone and migrant crises. The pandemic was followed by the war in Ukraine and the resulting cost of living crisis. That all contributed to the sense that traditional parties were not delivering. Meanwhile, parties like the AfD were extremely effective at using social media and digital campaigning. 'It's a digital revolution, as big a revolution as you know, radio back in the day,' Ms Skora said. 'I think this feeds into this tribalism and polarisation, which we see in more countries.' Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
'Doomsday Mom' removed from courtroom; 'Devil in the Ozarks' captured
PHOENIX - From the latest on the hunt for an escaped former Arkansas police chief to tense moments during the Lori Vallow Daybell trial, here's a look at some of the top stories on for Friday, June 6, 2025. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Trump administration, allowing its Department of Government Efficiency to access Social Security data once restricted by federal privacy law. Read More
an hour ago
The 911 presidency: Trump flexes emergency powers in his second term
WASHINGTON -- Call it the 911 presidency. Despite insisting that the United States is rebounding from calamity under his watch, President Donald Trump is harnessing emergency powers unlike any of his predecessors. Whether it's leveling punishing tariffs, deploying troops to the border or sidelining environmental regulations, Trump has relied on rules and laws intended only for use in extraordinary circumstances like war and invasion. An analysis by The Associated Press shows that 30 of Trump's 150 executive orders have cited some kind of emergency power or authority, a rate that far outpaces his recent predecessors. The result is a redefinition of how presidents can wield power. Instead of responding to an unforeseen crisis, Trump is using emergency powers to supplant Congress' authority and advance his agenda. 'What's notable about Trump is the enormous scale and extent, which is greater than under any modern president,' said Ilya Somin, who is representing five U.S. businesses who sued the administration, claiming they were harmed by Trump's so-called 'Liberation Day' tariffs. Because Congress has the power to set trade policy under the Constitution, the businesses convinced a federal trade court that Trump overstepped his authority by claiming an economic emergency to impose the tariffs. An appeals court has paused that ruling while the judges review it. The legal battle is a reminder of the potential risks of Trump's strategy. Judges traditionally have given presidents wide latitude to exercise emergency powers that were created by Congress. However, there's growing concern that Trump is pressing the limits when the U.S. is not facing the kinds of threats such actions are meant to address. 'The temptation is clear,' said Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Brennan Center's Liberty and National Security Program and an expert in emergency powers. 'What's remarkable is how little abuse there was before, but we're in a different era now.' Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., who has drafted legislation that would allow Congress to reassert tariff authority, said he believed the courts would ultimately rule against Trump in his efforts to single-handedly shape trade policy. 'It's the Constitution. James Madison wrote it that way, and it was very explicit,' Bacon said of Congress' power over trade. 'And I get the emergency powers, but I think it's being abused. When you're trying to do tariff policy for 80 countries, that's policy, not emergency action.' The White House pushed back on such concerns, saying Trump is justified in aggressively using his authority. 'President Trump is rightfully enlisting his emergency powers to quickly rectify four years of failure and fix the many catastrophes he inherited from Joe Biden — wide open borders, wars in Ukraine and Gaza, radical climate regulations, historic inflation, and economic and national security threats posed by trade deficits,' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said. Of all the emergency powers, Trump has most frequently cited the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, to justify slapping tariffs on imports. The law, enacted in 1977, was intended to limit some of the expansive authority that had been granted to the presidency decades earlier. It is only supposed to be used when the country faces 'an unusual and extraordinary threat' from abroad 'to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States.' In analyzing executive orders issued since 2001, the AP found that Trump has invoked the law 21 times in presidential orders and memoranda. President George W. Bush, grappling with the aftermath of the most devastating terror attack on U.S. soil, invoked the law just 14 times in his first term. Likewise, Barack Obama invoked the act only 21 times during his first term, when the U.S. economy faced the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression. The Trump administration has also deployed an 18th century law, the Alien Enemies Act, to justify deporting Venezuelan migrants to other countries, including El Salvador. Trump's decision to invoke the law relies on allegations that the Venezuelan government coordinates with the Tren de Aragua gang, but intelligence officials did not reach that conclusion. Congress has granted emergency powers to the presidency over the years, acknowledging that the executive branch can act more swiftly than lawmakers if there is a crisis. There are 150 legal powers — including waiving a wide variety of actions that Congress has broadly prohibited — that can only be accessed after declaring an emergency. In an emergency, for example, an administration can suspend environmental regulations, approve new drugs or therapeutics, take over the transportation system, or even override bans on testing biological or chemical weapons on human subjects, according to a list compiled by the Brennan Center for Justice. Democrats and Republicans have pushed the boundaries over the years. For example, in an attempt to cancel federal student loan debt, Joe Biden used a post-Sept. 11 law that empowered education secretaries to reduce or eliminate such obligations during a national emergency. The U.S. Supreme Court eventually rejected his effort, forcing Biden to find different avenues to chip away at his goals. Before that, Bush pursued warrantless domestic wiretapping and Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered the detention of Japanese-Americans on the West Coast in camps for the duration of World War II. Trump, in his first term, sparked a major fight with Capitol Hill when he issued a national emergency to compel construction of a border wall. Though Congress voted to nullify his emergency declaration, lawmakers could not muster up enough Republican support to overcome Trump's eventual veto. 'Presidents are using these emergency powers not to respond quickly to unanticipated challenges,' said John Yoo, who as a Justice Department official under George W. Bush helped expand the use of presidential authorities. 'Presidents are using it to step into a political gap because Congress chooses not to act.' Trump, Yoo said, 'has just elevated it to another level.' Conservative legal allies of the president also said Trump's actions are justified, and Vice President JD Vance predicted the administration would prevail in the court fight over tariff policy. 'We believe — and we're right — that we are in an emergency,' Vance said last week in an interview with Newsmax. 'You have seen foreign governments, sometimes our adversaries, threaten the American people with the loss of critical supplies,' Vance said. 'I'm not talking about toys, plastic toys. I'm talking about pharmaceutical ingredients. I'm talking about the critical pieces of the manufacturing supply chain.' Vance continued, 'These governments are threatening to cut us off from that stuff, that is by definition, a national emergency.' Republican and Democratic lawmakers have tried to rein in a president's emergency powers. Two years ago, a bipartisan group of lawmakers in the House and Senate introduced legislation that would have ended a presidentially-declared emergency after 30 days unless Congress votes to keep it in place. It failed to advance. Similar legislation hasn't been introduced since Trump's return to office. Right now, it effectively works in the reverse, with Congress required to vote to end an emergency. 'He has proved to be so lawless and reckless in so many ways. Congress has a responsibility to make sure there's oversight and safeguards,' said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., who cosponsored an emergency powers reform bill in the previous session of Congress. He argued that, historically, leaders relying on emergency declarations has been a 'path toward autocracy and suppression.'
