The big reason why Republicans should worry about an angry Elon Musk
In the November 2026 midterm elections, Elon Musk could have much more impact for much less money. Allison Robbert/AFP via Getty Images
How the Musk-Trump blowup ends, nobody knows.
Most commentary gives President Donald Trump the advantage. But Elon Musk's willingness to spend his fortune on elections gives him one distinct advantage — the ability to drive a brittle party system into chaos and loosen Trump's hold on it.
Thus far, Musk has raised two electoral threats. First, his opposition to Trump's One Big, Beautiful Bill has raised the specter of his funding primary challenges against Republicans who vote to support the legislation. Second, he has raised the possibility of starting a new political party. There are limits to how much Musk can actually reshape the political landscape — but the underlying conditions of our politics make it uniquely vulnerable to disruption.
The threat of Musk-funded primaries might ring a little hollow. Trump will almost certainly still be beloved by core Republican voters in 2026. Musk can fund primary challengers, but in a low-information, low-turnout environment of mostly Trump-loving loyal partisans, he is unlikely to succeed.
However, in the November 2026 midterm elections, Musk could have much more impact for much less money. All he needs to do is fund a few spoiler third-party candidates in a few key swing states and districts. In so doing, he would exploit the vulnerability that has been hiding in plain sight for a while — the wafer-thin closeness of national elections.
The Logoff
The email you need to stay informed about Trump — without letting the news take over your life, from senior editor Patrick Reis. Email (required)
Sign Up
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
In a straight-up battle for the soul of the Republican Party, Trump wins hands down. Not even close. Trump has been the party's leader and cult of personality for a decade.
But in a battle for the balance of power, Musk might hold the cards.
Currently, the US political system is 'calcified.' That's how the political scientists John Sides, Chris Tausanovitch, and Lynn Vavreck described it in their 2022 book, The Bitter End: The 2020 Presidential Campaign and the Challenge to American Democracy. Partisans keep voting for their side, seeing only the reality that makes them the heroes; events may change, but minds don't.
In a 48-48 country, that means little opportunity for either party to make big gains. It also means a small disruption could have massive implications.
Elon Musk doesn't have a winning coalition — but he may not need one to hurt Trump
Let's imagine, for a moment, that Musk is serious about starting a new political party and running candidates.
He will quickly find that despite his X poll, a party that 'actually represents the 80 percent in the middle' is a fantasy. That mythical center? Being generous here, that's maybe 15 percent of politically checked-out Americans.
Realistically, the coalition for Musk's politics — techno-libertarian-futurist, anti-system, very online, Axe-level bro-vibes — would be small. But even so, a Musk-powered independent party — call it the 'Colonize Mars' Party — would almost certainly attract exactly the voters completely disenchanted with both parties, mostly the disillusioned young men who went to Trump in the 2024 election.
Imagine Musk funds his Colonize Mars Party in every competitive race, recruiting energetic candidates. He gives disenchanted voters a chance to flip off the system: Vote for us, and you can throw the entire Washington establishment into a panic!
Practically, not many seats in the midterms will be up for grabs. Realistically, about 40 or so House seats will be genuine swing seats. In the Senate, there are realistically only about seven competitive races. But that means a small party of disruption could multiply the targeted impact of a precision blast with a well-chosen 5 percent of the electorate in less than 10 percent of the seats. Quite a payoff.
The short-term effect would be to help Democrats. Musk used to be a Democrat, so this is not so strange. If Musk and his tech allies care about immigration, trade, and investment in domestic science, supporting Democrats may make more sense. And if Musk mostly cares about disruption and sending Trump spiraling, this is how he would do it.
Musk is an engineer at heart. His successes have emerged from him examining existing systems, finding their weak points, and asking, What if we do something totally different?
From an engineer's perspective, the American political system has a unique vulnerability. Every election hangs on a narrow margin. The balance of power is tenuous.
Since 1992, we've been in an extended period in which partisan control of the White House, Senate, and the House has continually oscillated between parties. National electoral margins remain wickedly tight (we haven't had a landslide national election since 1984). And as elections come to depend on fewer and fewer swing states and districts, a targeted strike on these pivotal elections could completely upend the system.
A perfectly balanced and completely unstable system
It's a system ripe for disruption. So why has nobody disrupted it?
First, it takes money — and Musk has a lot of it.
Money has its limits — Musk's claim that his money helped Trump win the election is dubious. Our elections are already saturated with money. In an era of high partisan loyalty, the vast majority of voters have made up their minds before the candidate is even announced. Most money is wasted. It hits decreasing marginal returns fast.
The very thing that makes our politics feel so stuck is exactly what makes it so susceptible to Musk's threat.
But where money can make a difference is in reaching angry voters disenchanted with both parties with a protest option. Money buys awareness more than anything else. For $300 million (roughly what Musk spent in 2024), a billionaire could have leverage in some close elections. For $3 billion (about 1 percent of Musk's fortune) the chance of success goes up considerably.
Second, disruption is possible when there are enough voters who are indifferent to the final outcome. The reason Ross Perot did so well in 1992? Enough voters saw no difference between the parties that they felt fine casting a protest vote.
Election after election, we've gone through the same pattern. Throw out the old bums, bring in the new bums — even if 90-plus percent of the electorate votes for the same bums, year in and year out. But in a 48-48 country, with only a few competitive states and districts, a rounding-error shift of 10,000 votes across a few states (far fewer than a typical Taylor Swift concert) can bestow full control of the government. Think of elections as anti-incumbent roulette.
The system is indeed 'calcified,' as Sides, Tausanovitch, and Vavreck convincingly argue. Calcified can mean immovable. But it can also mean brittle. Indeed, the very thing that makes our politics feel so stuck is exactly what makes it so susceptible to Musk's threat.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Elon Musk threatens to decommission SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft after Trump feud. What does it mean for the US space industry?
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. An explosive, and very public, feud between President Donald Trump and SpaceX founder Elon Musk on Thursday (June 5) has raised doubts over the future of America's space industry. The war of words could place $22 billion of SpaceX's government contracts with multiple U.S. space programs at risk, according to one estimate, although the real figure — which remains classified — could be significantly higher. Following threats from the president on his social media platform Truth Social that the U.S. could cancel the government contracts and subsidies awarded to Musk's companies, the CEO of SpaceX retorted that his space company would "begin decommissioning its Dragon spacecraft immediately." Hours later, Musk responded to a follower telling him to "cool off" by saying "Good advice. Ok, we won't decommission Dragon." The disagreement began on Tuesday (June 3) when Musk criticized the administration's proposed tax and spending bill on his social media platform X. "This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination. Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it," Musk wrote on X. Related: 'No radio astronomy from the ground would be possible anymore': Satellite mega-swarms are blinding us to the cosmos — and a critical 'inflection point' is approaching This then escalated into a full-blown social media feud on Thursday, with Musk claiming that Trump's name appears in unreleased files relating to sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The White House condemned these allegations. "This is an unfortunate episode from Elon, who is unhappy with the One Big Beautiful Bill because it does not include the policies he wanted," representatives wrote on X. Trump then claimed Musk "just went CRAZY," posting: "The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts. I was always surprised that Biden didn't do it!" SpaceX's Dragon capsule is a reusable spacecraft capable of carrying up to seven passengers and cargo to and from Earth orbit, according to SpaceX. NASA currently relies on the capsule to ferry astronauts to the International Space Station (ISS), so canceling these government contracts effectively eliminates America's ability to launch astronauts to space from American soil, Live Science's sister website, reported. NASA also heavily relies on SpaceX for other space programs, having selected the Starship Human Landing System (HLS), a lunar lander variant of the company's next-generation Starship spacecraft, to carry American astronauts to the moon for the first time in more than 50 years aboard the 2027 Artemis 3 mission. NASA is investing $4 billion into Starship's development, and canceling its contract could seriously handicap NASA and the future of U.S.-led space exploration. While other competitors exist, such as Amazon founder Jeff Bezos's Blue Origin and Boeing's Starliner spacecraft, they lag far behind SpaceX. RELATED STORIES —Facing steep funding cuts, scientists propose using black holes as particle colliders instead of building new ones on Earth —Trump's 2026 budget would slash NASA funding by 24% and its workforce by nearly one third —NASA plans to build a giant radio telescope on the 'dark side' of the moon. Here's why. The Starliner capsule is not yet certified to fly operational astronaut missions and was responsible for "stranding" two astronauts on the ISS for nine months last year. The astronauts returned to Earth on March 18 aboard a SpaceX Dragon capsule, and neither Boeing nor NASA have offered any significant updates into fixes that will make Starliner flightworthy. SpaceX's lead on its competitors is reflected in the size of its government subsidies. In April, the U.S. Space Force, the military branch of U.S. space exploration, awarded the company nearly $6 billion in launch contracts, while the United Launch Alliance received $5.4 billion and Blue Origin $2.4 billion. In response to the feud between Musk and Trump, NASA press secretary Bethany Stevens declined to comment on SpaceX, but she did tell Reuters that "we will continue to work with our industry partners to ensure the president's objectives in space are met." NASA's deputy administrator Lori Garver told Reuters that, as well as not being in national interests, canceling SpaceX's contacts would probably not be legal. However, she also added that "a rogue CEO threatening to decommission spacecraft, putting astronauts' lives at risk, is untenable."
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Worried Northwestern lab directors describe ‘bleak' atmosphere in wake of Trump research funding freeze
The Trump administration's freezing in April of $790 million in federal research funding for Northwestern University has left concerned lab directors without key grants from the National Institutes of Health and forced the university to spend millions to keep vital research afloat and to continue to pay graduate workers and scientists. Carole LaBonne, a professor of molecular biosciences at Northwestern, said the situation at the prominent research institution can only be described as 'bleak' as the halt in federal funds continues to send shockwaves across the Evanston campus. 'You're at risk of losing an entire next generation of scientists, and these are the researchers who are going to be driving tomorrow's discoveries and cures,' LaBonne told the Tribune. 'It has short-term impacts, it has long-term impacts — it's terrifying; it's completely senseless.' Northwestern officials did not confirm how much the university is spending to keep research going there, but LaBonne said that is widely known among the science faculty, who were recently notified by the dean of the Weinberg College of Arts and Sciences in a meeting that it is costing Northwestern more than $10 million a week. 'The university is working very hard to advocate on behalf of research and our researchers,' a Northwestern spokesperson said in a statement. 'Our lifesaving research improves our society and has a multibillion-dollar impact on our economy.' In recent letters to the campus community, Northwestern President Michael Schill and other administrators said the university has received about 100 stop-work orders, mostly Department of Defense-funded research projects, and about 50 grant terminations. In addition, officials said Northwestern researchers have not received payments for National Institutes of Health grants since March, signaling that those funds have been frozen, despite no official word from the Trump administration. They also wrote that the university would continue to fund research affected by stop-work orders and the federal funding freeze. 'This support is intended to keep these projects going until we have a better understanding of the funding landscape,' the officials wrote. 'We expect and hope to recoup the costs of this research once federal funding is restored. However, this commitment places significant financial stress on the University and is not a permanent solution.' LaBonne said the scientific community at Northwestern is living in 'existential dread' as the question of how the university can continue to sustain big-budget research without grant reimbursements looms large. 'Financially, you're going to cripple universities. And when you cripple universities, you're going to cripple not only our health and scientific discoveries in this country, but also our economy,' she said. 'The federal government depends on universities to conduct the research that keeps our nation healthy, safe and economically competitive.' Part of LaBonne's lab work at Northwestern touches on pediatric cancers, and NIH funding has historically fueled breakthroughs in cancer treatments. 'Forty years ago, more than 60% of children that were diagnosed with cancer would have died within five years of the diagnosis. Today, there's a 90% survival rate,' she said. For years, work in LaBonne's lab has centered on understanding the normal development of the neural crest — a stem cell population central to the evolution of the vertebrates — and understanding how cancer can result from the aberrant development of this cell type. Such research never ends, LaBonne said, adding that she fears that some long-standing research programs won't be sustainable for much longer with federal funding in limbo. Sadie Wignall, a molecular biosciences professor at Northwestern, agrees. 'There is a lot of anxiety and apprehension because of the uncertainty of the situation, and that uncertainty is what is very difficult to navigate,' said Wignall. 'Many research labs here have NIH funding. I run my lab entirely off NIH funding. Am I going to be able to continue to pay the staff in my lab? Am I going to be able to continue to take graduate students into my lab?' Two NIH grants pay the salaries of four doctoral students and two research scientists in the Wignall Lab, which is investigating the dynamics and mechanics of how reproductive cells divide. Wignall also directs the Interdisciplinary Biological Sciences Graduate Program, which trains graduate students to get postdoctorates in biomedical science on the Evanston campus. The funding freeze affects those early-career scientists, she said, explaining that students go through three 10-week lab rotations culminating in a match system. But uncertain funding means labs can't take new doctoral students to train them, which means fewer students get the opportunity to study and work at Northwestern's myriad research facilities. 'We're right at that point of the year for our first-year class where they've been rotating through different research labs to try to decide where they want to do their Ph.D. research, but with the funding freeze and canceled grants, there are now a lot of labs that thought they wanted to recruit a student this year and now can't,' Wignall said. 'If current first-years can't find a lab to join, they'll likely have to exit the Ph.D. program.' How federal funding works At the beginning of every grant year, the NIH or the National Science Foundation sends a Notice of Award detailing approval for a certain amount of spending in the next grant year, but a check isn't sent to Northwestern. It's essentially an 'IOU,' explained Wignall. 'So as I make purchases on my grant and as I pay salaries, Northwestern sends an invoice to the NIH that says, 'Professor Wignall has charged these approved funds, please reimburse us,'' she said. 'That usually happens about every two weeks — an invoice is sent for every NIH grant to the NIH, then they send a check to cover that spending. And then at the end of the year, just like you do in a bank account, you have your balance. You try to spend down to zero on approved funds.' Northwestern recently has been submitting those requests to the NIH, hoping that the money will flow again, but nothing has been reimbursed since late March. 'All of the labs that are doing research are basically accumulating debt because we're spending money that we were promised, but it's not being sent, and the university is the one on the hook for that money right now,' Wignall said. The Trump administration's decision to freeze nearly all of Northwestern's annual federal research funding stems from federal investigations into allegations of antisemitism and civil rights violations at the university amid the school's handling of pro-Palestinian demonstrations on campus. The Trump administration also froze $1 billion in federal funds for Cornell University and stripped more than $2 billion in federal grants from Harvard University and blocked its international student enrollment. The administration also has ordered U.S. embassies and consular sections to stop scheduling new interviews for student visa applicants. LaBonne and other academics are highly skeptical of the Trump administration's reasoning, particularly the claims of widespread antisemitism on campus. 'Just about everything they're doing was clearly laid out in the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 and that happened before Oct. 7 — before the encampments on campus,' LaBonne said. 'None of this has to do with any of that. It's about hurting universities, and why you would want to do that when they're so centrally important to our scientific research enterprise and the economics of the U.S. is mind-blowing.' Wignall, like LaBonne and other lab directors, said she's 'extremely grateful' to the board of trustees and the administration for helping to support their research. LaBonne said support is crucial, not just for the research itself but also because research labs train scientists, and science majors at top research universities expect hands-on training in faculty labs. 'But all of us researchers understand that the university can't support us forever and at some point they're going to have to shut down some labs. It's very uncertain if my lab will be fine a month from now or two months from now,' Wignall added. A tiny pacemaker fit for newborn babies At Northwestern's Efimov Lab in Chicago, research associate Eric Rytkin is working with a team of graduate students on several projects, including the world's smallest pacemaker. Their study, published in the journal Nature, demonstrates that the device, which is smaller than a grain of rice, can be non-invasively placed in the body. And although it is suitable for hearts of all sizes, researchers say the pacemaker is particularly beneficial to the tiny, fragile hearts of newborn babies with congenital heart defects. The project was made possible through an NIH grant, Rytkin said, and a new grant was issued recently, but the award has yet to be distributed. Still the pacemaker project remains secure, Rytkin said, thanks to Northwestern and interest from the national scientific community. But another project — a device aimed at delivering painless shocks to defibrillate the heart — is being tabled. 'I can say that everything here boils down to the quality of life of patients. Of course there are lifesaving therapies, but whether these lifesaving therapies will be well tolerated by this person, and whether it will affect their physical or moral well-being of that person is equally as important as the years of life,' Rytkin said. Rytkin said while it's common in the industry to prioritize certain research projects over others, it isn't ideal to have to put ideas on the back burner. 'As researchers we would like to have academic freedom to explore other ideas which are not aimed at immediate gain or immediate profit, but may have and may result in wonderful spinoffs and technological models at a later date,' Rytkin said. 'And if the devices are getting translated, it's the most likely path that they're going to be acquired by some big corporation like Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Abbott — they're all American companies.' Lichao (James) Tang, a joint Ph.D. student who earned a master's in biomedical engineering from Northwestern University, performed surgeries on lab animals during the pacemaker development. Tang said the hope is for the pacemaker to be clinically tested in humans in five years, but that might now hinge on federal funding. NIH spending also supports Tang's salary. 'The freeze affects our overall lab budget, because we have a lot of money to spend, either to purchase research animals, or to purchase materials, to fabricate devices,' Tang said. 'We can only buy the things that are super necessary right now.' Like many of his colleagues involved in research labs, Tang has concerns about the future of science and research. 'I've been in the U.S. for a very long time, but prospective students will definitely have (to think about their choices). Without all the issues with federal funding and student visas, I think America would definitely be their top choice,' said Tang, who is from China. 'It's getting harder to even get a student visa right now. And even if you come here, say for a Ph.D. program where you have at least a five-year commitment, the current uncertainty would make students think, 'If I come here, what if my funding is not guaranteed?'' Attracting top talent from other countries The halt in student visa interviews and the funding freeze will make it much more difficult for the U.S. to attract top minds from around the world, experts say. 'The reality is that there is a race for global talent around the world,' said Fanta Aw, executive director and CEO of NAFSA: Association of International Educators. 'The truth of the matter is, international students are going into fields like STEM that are in very high demand, but where there's a massive skill gap that exists in this country. These students are playing a very critical role in filling this gap that we're seeing.' A recent NAFSA breakdown looks at the national and state benefits from international students and how much money they've contributed to universities and colleges. According to the data, international students at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign have contributed $567.5 million to the local economy and supported 6,158 jobs; at the University of Chicago, $428.1 million and 4,965 jobs; at Northwestern, $323.7 million and 3,573 jobs; and the University of Illinois Chicago, $184.9 million and 1,886 jobs. LaBonne said the cuts are detrimental to many sectors of the U.S. 'The government doesn't fund university labs to help universities' bottom line — it funds the best ideas and people to meet national priorities,' she said. 'The resulting discoveries spill over to benefit all of society: new medicines, new companies, new military capabilities. This has been called one of the most productive partnerships in American history.' Academics have long argued that federally funded technologies like the revolutionary-gene editing tool CRISPR, CAR-T Therapy for cancer, vaccines and research unlocking treatments for diseases such as ALS and Alzheimer's are solid arguments for why Congress and the White House should ensure consistent and robust funding for science. LaBonne said the funding decreases touch virtually every area of science and goes far beyond the diversity, equity and inclusion programs the Trump administration wants to cut. An April executive order from the Trump administration mandated the elimination of DEI-related programs in federal agencies, resulting in the NSF canceling hundreds of project grants at universities. In February, U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz published a list identifying more than a third of the NSF grants that were being terminated, of which a handful were Northwestern grants. In a statement, the NSF said it has undertaken a review of its award portfolio. 'The agency has determined that termination of certain awards is necessary because they are not in alignment with current NSF priorities,' NSF officials said. On its website, the NSF said it is canceling awards that are not in line with its priorities, including those focused on DEI, environmental justice and 'misinformation/disinformation.' According to Grant Watch — a website that tracks the termination of scientific research grants under the Trump administration — more than 20 NIH grants related to research into HIV/AIDS, child development, substance use, vaccine hesitancy in Black communities, family planning and more were canceled at Northwestern. Lab directors at Northwestern noted there's a rigorous process for procuring federal grants each submission cycle. After a proposal is submitted, 20 to 30 scientists from across the country with subject matter expertise review the proposal and give them scores. Months later, another advisory council approves the recommendations and greenlights a federal grant. 'This is not easy money; this is highly competitive for the best ideas and the best processes,' LaBonne added. Wignall, who's said she's trying to stay positive despite the chaos, said the cost of stripping resources away from scientific research is insurmountable and will have an impact far beyond the current political situation. 'I think this is going to have a really chilling effect on future generations of students, because people will look at this career and say that science is not a safe career — It's too dependent on political whims,' Wignall said. 'Traditionally, science has been science. Support for science has been very bipartisan and we really hope that we can turn this around … otherwise we're really going to lose our excellence as a nation.'
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Ohio food banks strain as Trump slashes federal aid programs
By P.J. Huffstutter COLUMBUS, Ohio (Reuters) -On a warm spring morning, volunteers at the Mid-Ohio Food Collective plucked cucumbers from a greenhouse where a state psychiatric hospital once stood and the land lay fallow. Now the state's largest food bank is working that ground again, part of an urgent effort to shore up supplies amid shrinking federal support, including deep funding cuts under President Donald Trump. They are planting more. Prepping soil for fruit trees, and installing hives for honey. In the greenhouse, crates of romaine and butterhead lettuce were packed for delivery, bound for a pantry across town. Back at headquarters in Grove City, staff chased leads from grocers, manufacturers, even truckers looking to unload abandoned freight. Every pallet helped. Every pound counted. In a state that handed Trump three straight wins, where Trump flags flap near food aid flyers pinned on bulletin boards, the cost of his austerity push is starting to show. "Food banks will still have food," said Mid-Ohio CEO Matt Habash. "But with these cuts, you'll start to see a heck of a lot less food, or pantries and agencies closing. You're going to have a lot of hungry, and a lot less healthy, America." For decades, food banks like Mid-Ohio have been the backbone of the nation's anti-hunger system, channelling government support and donations from corporations and private donors into meals and logistics to support pantries at churches, non-profits and other organizations. If a food bank is a warehouse, food pantries are the store. Outside one of those – the Eastside Community Ministry pantry in rural Muskingum County, Ohio – Mary Dotson walked slow, cane in hand. The minute she stepped through the doors, her whole body seemed to lift. They call her Mama Mary here, as she's got the kind of voice that settles you down and straightens you out in the same breath. The regulars grin as Dotson, 77, pats shoulders, swaps recipes. She had tried to do everything right: built a career, raised five children, planned for the quiet years with her husband. But after he died and the kids moved away, the life they'd built slipped out of reach. Now her monthly Social Security check is $1,428. She budgets $70 of that for groceries, and she gets $23 in food benefits as well. She started as a volunteer at Eastside. Simple math convinced her to become a customer. 'I figured if I'm going to take these things,' Dotson said, 'I'm going to work here, too.' CAMPAIGN FODDER The Mid-Ohio Food Collective was born out of church basements and borrowed trucks nearly a half-century ago, when factory closures left more families hungry. It's now the state's largest food bank, feeding more than 35,000 Ohio families a week. It supplies more than 600 food pantries, soup kitchens, children and senior feeding sites, after-school programs and other partner agencies. When Trump returned to office in January, Mid-Ohio was already slammed. Pantry visits across its 20 counties hit 1.8 million last year, nearly double pre-COVID levels, and are continuing to grow this year. The biggest surge came from working people whose paychecks no longer stretch far enough due to pandemic-era inflation under Joe Biden's presidency, staff said. Then came the Trump cuts. In March, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) cancelled the pandemic-era Local Food Purchase Assistance (LFPA) program, which funded about $500 million annually for food banks; and froze about $500 million in funding for The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP), one of the agency's core nutrition programs that supplies food to states to pass on to food banks for free. Much of the food Mid-Ohio distributes is donated, but donations alone can't stock a pantry consistently. Its current $11.1 million purchasing budget, built from federal, state and private dollars, helps fill the gaps. The March cuts wiped out about 22% of Mid-Ohio's buying power for next fiscal year – funds and food that staff are trying to replace. In early December, Mid-Ohio ordered 24 truckloads filled with milk, meat and eggs for delivery this spring and summer. The food came through the TEFAP program, using about $1.5 million in government funding. The first delivery was scheduled to show up April 9. The only thing to arrive was a cancellation notice. USDA said in a statement Secretary Brooke Rollins is working to ensure federal nutrition spending is efficient, effective and aligned with the administration's budget priorities. More cuts could come. Last month, the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives passed Trump's tax and spending bill. It called for $300 billion in cuts to food benefits for low income people under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which fed nearly 1.4 million Ohioans in January, according to the latest state data. If the cuts survive the Senate and are passed into law, it annually would cost Ohio at least $475 million in state funding to maintain current SNAP benefits, plus at least $70 million for administrative program costs, said Cleveland-based The Center for Community Solutions, an independent, nonpartisan policy research group. That would consume nearly every state-controlled dollar in Ohio's Department of Job and Family Services budget, roughly 95% of the general revenue meant to help fund everything from jobless claims to foster care. Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine and other lawmakers in this GOP supermajority state capitol, facing a constitutional requirement to pass a balanced budget, told Reuters that extra money for food banks isn't there. The proposed fiscal 2025 Ohio budget would set food bank funding back to 2019 levels – or about 23% less than what it spent this year, in a state where nearly one in three people qualify for help. Federal safety-net programs have become campaign fodder, too. At a recent Ohio Republican Party fundraiser in Richland County, Ohio, voters in suits and Bikers for Trump gear alike listened to Vivek Ramaswamy, the tech millionaire turned presidential candidate now running for Ohio governor. He spoke out against "a culture of dependence on the entitlement state that has festered in our country for 60 years." SAVING A PENNY So what happens when the government pulls back and supplies thin? If you're Victoria Brown and her small team of four, it means working the phones, chasing leads, watching markets, and moving fast. At Mid-Ohio's offices in Grove City, the food bank's director of sourcing sipped her coffee and squinted at her screen, eyes tracking the price-per-pound of cucumbers down to the cent. Saving a penny might seem inconsequential, unless you're trying to buy 40,000 pounds. In a supply chain that has relied on steady government support, food donations have become even more important, even as they grow more haphazard in both timing and what's available. Outside Brown's office, one staffer was trying to track down a shipment of pineapples. The rest were on the road, talking crop conditions with farmers, negotiating delivery times with suppliers and checking with grocers to see what might be sitting in the back, waiting for a second life. Brown glanced at her inbox, where new offers stacked up: At 11:10 a.m., one pallet of frozen chicken. I'll find out why it's being donated, a staffer promised. At 11:13 a.m., four pallets of cereal, bulk packed in industrial totes. Brown jotted a note for the volunteer coordinator: Anyone available to scoop a thousand pounds of cereal into small bags? RACING THE CLOCK Some of that food may be headed for Mid-Ohio's Norton Market, a modern food pantry built to feel like a real store in Columbus. The man in charge here is Denver Burkhart. He moves with the kind of precision the military teaches and life reinforces. At 35, he looks every bit the soldier he still is – broad-shouldered and lean, squared off at the edges. Fifteen years in the Army, two tours in Afghanistan, one in Iraq, now he has a mission back home until he serves overseas again with the Ohio Army National Guard. He started the morning as he always does: at a laptop in the back cramped office, racing to secure whatever free or discounted goods Brown's team had found. He leaned over the keyboard, one eye on the clock, the other on the blinking screen. The inventory system had just refreshed. The race was on to fill his mental list. His fingers clicked fast, steady, practiced. He hovered over baby formula. More moms have been showing up lately. Forty cases into the cart. Maybe too many – but if he waited, they'd be gone. "I rely heavily on the free product," he said. "Without it, we'd be hurting really bad." "WATER DAYS" Across town, Shannon Follins checks on her ice supply. It's for what she calls the "water days." Follins, 37, is raising three kids, including 3-year-old twins. One is autistic; he hasn't found his words yet. Until recently, Follins worked third shift at Waffle House for $5.25 an hour, and now she's studying for a degree in social services. Family brings groceries when they can. But it's the pantry at Broad Street Presbyterian Church, stocked by Mid-Ohio, that lets her make meals that feel like more than survival. One recent night, her daughter Essence twirled barefoot across their kitchen floor, dancing to the sounds of boiling pasta and chicken simmering in the pan. When there was nothing else to eat, she filled her kids' bellies with tap water and a mother's promise that tomorrow might be better. "It gives me a sense of security," she said, nodding toward the plastic jugs stacked in her freezer. If the government cuts food aid? She's prepared for more water days.
