分类： politics

As the US government shutdown persists, millions of Americans reliant on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) face uncertainty over their food benefits. The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) warned states on October 10 that prolonged shutdown could lead to ‘insufficient funds’ to pay full SNAP benefits by November. This has triggered widespread concern among low-income families who depend on the program for their monthly groceries. SNAP, which supports approximately 40 million Americans, provides an average of $6 per person daily, making it a lifeline for many households. Hilary Seligman, a professor at the University of California, San Francisco, emphasized the program’s critical role in preventing families from choosing between rent and food. The shutdown has disrupted federal funding to states, delaying SNAP card reloads and processing. While a $5 billion contingency fund exists, it would only cover 60% of November’s benefits, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Political blame has intensified, with Republicans and Democrats accusing each other of causing the crisis. States like Pennsylvania have already issued warnings about potential benefit delays, further heightening anxieties among vulnerable populations.

A prominent Democratic representative from the House Oversight Committee has publicly urged Prince Andrew to appear before Congress to clarify his association with Jeffrey Epstein, the deceased financier convicted of sex trafficking. The lawmaker emphasized the necessity for the prince to provide a detailed account of his interactions with Epstein, whose crimes have sparked widespread scrutiny of his high-profile connections. This development underscores the growing pressure on Prince Andrew to address lingering questions about his involvement with Epstein, particularly as investigations into the latter’s network continue. The call for testimony highlights the broader implications of accountability for public figures linked to Epstein’s illicit activities.

In a recent interview with Time magazine, former U.S. President Donald Trump issued a stark warning to Israel, stating that the United States would withdraw its crucial support if Israel proceeds with the annexation of the occupied West Bank. Trump emphasized that such a move would violate his commitments to Arab nations, which have been pivotal in fostering regional stability. ‘It won’t happen. It won’t happen because I gave my word to the Arab countries. And you can’t do that now. We’ve had great Arab support,’ Trump asserted. He further stressed, ‘Israel would lose all of its support from the United States if that happened.’

Trump also expressed optimism about Saudi Arabia joining the Abraham Accords, a series of agreements normalizing relations between Israel and Arab states, by the end of the year. ‘Yes, I do. I do,’ he replied when questioned about Riyadh’s potential involvement. He highlighted the resolution of Israel’s conflicts in Gaza and Iran’s nuclear program as key factors enabling this diplomatic progress.

Additionally, Trump revealed that he is considering whether Israel should release Marwan Barghouti, a prominent Palestinian prisoner from the Fatah movement, as part of broader peace efforts. Barghouti’s release has been a contentious issue in recent negotiations.

Meanwhile, U.S. Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have both cautioned Israel against annexation, with Vance labeling it a ‘very stupid political stunt’ and Rubio warning that such actions could jeopardize the fragile Gaza ceasefire. Despite these warnings, Israeli lawmakers have advanced bills that could pave the way for annexation, raising concerns about the future of U.S.-Israel relations and regional stability.

The United States has significantly escalated its military presence in the Caribbean over the past two months, deploying warships, fighter jets, bombers, marines, drones, and spy planes in what is described as the largest military buildup in the region in decades. This deployment, which includes long-range B-52 bombers conducting ‘bomber attack demonstrations’ off Venezuela’s coast, has raised tensions and drawn widespread condemnation. The US claims its actions target ‘narcotics’ and ‘narco-terrorists’ on small Venezuelan vessels, though it has provided no evidence to support these allegations. Critics argue the operation is less about drug trafficking and more about intimidating Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his inner circle, with the ultimate goal of regime change. Dr. Christopher Sabatini of Chatham House suggests the buildup is a strategic show of strength designed to ‘strike fear’ and prompt defections within Maduro’s ranks. The US has also authorized CIA operations in Venezuela, further fueling speculation about covert efforts to destabilize the government. Despite a $50 million bounty for Maduro’s arrest, no significant defections have occurred, with analysts noting that Venezuela’s elites are unlikely to be swayed by financial incentives alone. The US military’s presence, including guided missile destroyers and amphibious assault ships, has been closely monitored using satellite imagery and social media. While the Trump administration frames this as a war on drugs, experts question the legality and true intent of the strikes, pointing out that Venezuela is not a major cocaine producer. The situation remains volatile, with the US military buildup serving as both a deterrent and a potential prelude to more aggressive actions.

In a surprising turn of events, former President Donald Trump’s position on the demolition of the East Wing has undergone significant changes. Initially, the decision to dismantle the historic structure was met with controversy, as it aimed to pave the way for a lavish $250 million (£186 million) ballroom at the White House. Critics argued that the move disregarded the architectural heritage of the building, while supporters viewed it as a modernization effort. Trump’s fluctuating stance on the issue has sparked debates about the balance between preserving history and embracing progress. The demolition, now completed, marks a pivotal moment in the White House’s architectural evolution, raising questions about the long-term impact on its historical legacy and public perception.