Wednesday, November 5 was a major day for the U.S. Supreme Court, which listened to oral arguments on President Donald Trump's trade policy in Learning Resources v. Trump.

At issue is whether or not Trump, under the Emergency Powers Act of 1977, can unilaterally impose steep tariffs by executive order without the input of Congress. The justices listened to arguments, both pro and con, and attorney Neal Katyal — known for his liberal/conservative legal alliance with Never Trump conservative attorney George Conway — offered anti-Trump trade policy arguments.

Liberal economist Paul Krugman analyzes the hearing in a November 7 column posted on his Substack page. And he emphasizes that Trump, thanks to the conservative-dominated High Court, may be in for a major "humiliation."

"How is it going for Trump's tariffs before the Supreme Court?" Krugman asks. "I'm not an enthusiast for prediction markets because they basically just summarize conventional wisdom. But tracking conventional wisdom is sometimes useful. And the prediction markets verdict on Wednesday's hearing, shown at the top of this post, was clear: it was a disaster for the (Trump) Administration's case."

Krugman adds, "So, Trump's signature economic policy may soon melt down into a puddle of incompetence and humiliation. If that should happen, I will celebrate both the end of an extraordinarily bad policy and the Supreme Court's willingness to (finally!) check Trump's authoritarian behavior. Yet I am somewhat disappointed with the specific grounds upon which the Supremes appear to be resting their arguments against the Trump tariffs."

The former New York Times columnist goes on to argue that the High Court's 6-3 right-wing supermajority may reach the right decision for the wrong reasons.

"They have so far focused on the fact that tariffs are taxes, and that the Constitution specifically gives taxing authority to Congress and not the president," Krugman explains. "Fair point. But the Court for International Trade, in their ruling against the Trump tariffs, made a different argument. The Emergency Powers Act only empowers the president to act in response to economic emergencies. And while the White House has declared two such emergencies — trade deficits and fentanyl — the CIT found that neither declaration provided a plausible rationale for the actual tariffs Trump imposed."

Krugman continues, "More broadly, supporting Trump's tariffs requires engaging in doublethink. You have to believe Trump's assertions that everything is wonderful, that this is the best economy ever. But you also have to believe that we’re facing an economic emergency that justifies massive tariff increases, hitting almost every nation and abrogating generations’ worth of international agreements."

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

With the partial shutdown of the United States' federal government dragging on after more than a month, Democrats are applauding a judge's ruling that orders the federal government to continue paying Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits — shutdown and all.

Vice President JD Vance, meanwhile, is attacking the judge.

CNN's Aaron Blake, in a Friday, November 7 post on X, formerly Twitter, reports, "Vance on judge's ruling that admin must fully fund SNAP: 'The president and the entire administration are working on that, but we’re not going to do it under the orders of a federal judge. We're going to do it according to what we think we have to do to comply with the law.'"

The SNAP ruling came from U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell Jr., based in Rhode Island.

The federal government has been partially shut down since October 1, with GOP and Democratic lawmakers unable to reach an agreement on a spending bill.

As a result, the U.S. is seeing long lines and flight cancellations at airports. And SNAP recipients, with their benefits cut off, are turning to food banks for help.

McConnell, however, ruled that regardless of the shutdown, the government has no business cutting SNAP benefits off.

Democratic strategists and organizers were on pins and needles when Election Night 2025 arrived, but their stress and anxiety turned to optimism when their party enjoyed a long list of victories — from double-digit wins in gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia (a key swing state) to three Democratic Pennsylvania Supreme Court justices being retained in a landslide vote. Democrats expected the New Jersey race to be close; instead, Gov.-elect Mikie Sherrill defeated Republican Jack Ciattarelli by 13 percent.

During an appearance on the Daily Beast podcast "Inside Trump's Head" posted on Thursday, November 6, author Michael Wolff argued that the election results were an across-the-board repudiation of Donald Trump's second presidency.

Wolff told host Joanna Coles, "We've just spent a year since last Election Day with Trump as this omnipotent figure in politics. And while I would not say that today spells in any way the end of Trump, I would say that the end of Trump could well happen."

Wolff essentially argued that while Trump isn't out, he is definitely down following Election Night 2025.

The author told Coles, "That's one of the great things in American politics: reversals, landslides — things that you would not dream of happening — happen... This has been a horrifying year of 'Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump' without any sense that anyone could stand in his way. You think these people are permanent, and it turns out that they are fleeting."

Wolff noted that he has spoken to some Trump White House officials since the election, saying they are "not happy campers."

Wolff told Coles, "That's one of the great things in American politics: reversals, landslides — things that you would not dream of happening — happen.... This has been a horrifying year of 'Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump' without any sense that anyone could stand in his way…. You think these people are permanent, and it turns out that they are fleeting."

The full "Inside Trump's Head" vodcast is available at this link (subscription required).

- YouTube www.youtube.com

Like Vice-President JD Vance, Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-New York) and Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina), Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio) flip-flopped dramatically when it came to President Donald Trump and the MAGA movement. Moreno, in late 2020, was highly critical of Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election results; in 2021, he did an about-face and claimed, without evidence, that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump.

But that flip-flopping didn't prevent Moreno from winning Ohio's 2024 U.S. Senate race and flipping a seat previously held by Democrat Sherrod Brown, who he defeated by roughly 3.5 percent.

Now, in late 2025, the Bogotá, Colombia-born senator and former car salesman is admitting that he spied on the cars of his Democratic colleagues.

During a Wednesday, November 5 Senate confirmation hearing for Ryan McCormack — President Donald Trump's nominee for an undersecretary position in the U.S. Department of Transportation — Moreno told him, "Would it surprise you that I got the VIN numbers of every one of my Democrat colleagues' vehicles and found that none of them bought any of the additional safety technologies on their cars?.... As somebody who's been here 10 months, I think what we just saw was exactly classic Washington, D.C. In other words, the car that I drive should be safe. The car that my staff drives? Who cares about them? I get a paycheck."

Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-Nevada) called Moreno out, saying, "I object to you stalking my car and my staff to find the VIN numbers to present to this committee. Why are you doing that? What are you going to do with them? It's an invasion of our privacy. ... If you came and asked me for my VIN, I would tell you what I have in my car. It's visible from the outside of the car. You went and followed me to see who drives me and write down their VIN number. You interrupted me. You're attacking me. You watched me go to see who drives me, writing down their VIN number so you could find out what they have. That seems a little creepy."

Rosen called Moreno out on X, formerly Twitter, as well.

The Nevada senator tweeted, "Instead of @berniemoreno creepily following us to the cars we use to get to work in the Capitol and writing down their VIN numbers, I'd suggest he use his time in more productive ways – like coming to the table and negotiating with Democrats on actions to protect Americans' access to affordable health care and end this Republican shutdown."

Before Fox News fired him, Tucker Carlson was among the most influential figure on the right-wing cable news outlet. Carlson had so much power on the right that when Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said something that offended him, the GOP senator made a beeline for his show to smooth things over.

Although Carlson, post-Fox News, doesn't have as much power as he did in the past, he still has plenty of followers on the far right.

According to journalist/author Jamie Kirchick, Carlson is promoting a great deal of infighting among MAGA Republicans. And one MAGA Republican who has the most to lose, Kirchick reports, is Vice President JD Vance.

In an article published by the Washington Post, Kirchick highlights Carlson's friendly relationship with Nick Fuentes — a white supremacist and Holocaust denier who, in 2024, attacked Vance for being married to an Indian-American woman, attorney JD Vance.

"Ironically, the politician Carlson is harming most with his antics is the person he wants to succeed Trump: Vice President JD Vance," Kirchick explains. "Carlson, who praised Vance in his discussion with Fuentes as one of the very few people on the right who shares his foreign policy views, reportedly played a decisive role in convincing Trump to name Vance as his running mate. Vance, who has since employed Carlson's son as his deputy press secretary, invited Carlson to the White House when he guest-hosted the 'Charlie Kirk Show' following the assassination of its eponymous host. Having benefited from Carlson's scorched-earth campaign against 'the neoconservatives,' Vance now appears stuck with Carlson's antisemitic, conspiratorial, anti-American baggage whether he likes it or not."

Kirchick continues, "Thus far, Vance has done nothing to distance himself from this kind of politics. When Politico exposed racist and antisemitic text messages sent by members of Young Republican clubs last month, the vice president forgivingly characterized the appalling behavior of these 20- and 30-somethings as “what kids do.” A more disturbing incident occurred last week, when Vance responded to a question from a student at the University of Mississippi. Sounding very much like one of Fuentes' 'groyper' followers, the young man in a MAGA hat asked Vance why the U.S. supports Israel “considering the fact that not only does their religion not agree with ours, but also openly supports the prosecution (sic) of ours.”

According to Kirchick, Carlson is fueling — not discouraging — the civil war among MAGA Republicans.

"The inevitable fracturing of President Donald Trump's MAGA movement is in sight, the instigator of its rupture that most narcissistic and destructive of media personalities: Tucker Carlson," Kirchick reports. "Since his firing from Fox News two years ago, Carlson has turned his podcast into a weekly circus featuring guests such as rancid conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, Russian despot Vladimir Putin and Darryl Cooper, a Holocaust denier who claims Winston Churchill was the villain of World War 2 and whom Carlson praises as 'the most important historian in the United States.' Carlson’s approach with his guests is not that of a skeptical interlocutor, prodding their arguments for weaknesses, but rather, that of a reputation-launderer making reprehensible ideas respectable for mainstream conservative consumption. Even Trump calls Carlson 'kooky.'"

Trump is cracking down on large universities over protests against Israeli operations in Gaza — protests he attacks as antisemitic. Yet a prominent figure in the MAGA movement is Nick Fuentes, a white nationalist and Holocaust denier who often criticizes other MAGA figures for not being far-right enough.

"It was only a matter of time, then, that Carlson would invite Nick Fuentes up to his Maine cabin home studio for a chummy colloquy last week in which the self-professed Hitler and Stalin admirer ranted about 'neocon Jewish types behind the Iraq War,' 'organized Jewry,' 'Zionist Jews.… controlling the media apparatus,' and 'the historic animosity between the Jewish people and the Europeans,'" Kirchick explains. "The furthest Carlson went in rebuking Fuentes was to offer the friendly advice that he refrain from condemning 'the Jews' per se, because 'going on about the Jews helps the neocons.' Otherwise, the two were simpatico, particularly on the subject of Christian Zionists, who, Carlson said, have been 'seized by this brain virus.'"

Kirchick adds, "Carlson's jovial exchange with Fuentes naturally stirred controversy, particularly within the conservative movement, which many pro-Israel Christians call home. So intense was the anger that the Heritage Foundation removed Carlson's name from a donation page on its website. The scrubbing must have been unauthorized, however, because the following day, Heritage President Kevin Roberts released a defiant video reaffirming the organization's relationship with Carlson."

According to Kirchick, arguments over antisemitism are only growing more intense in the MAGA movement.

"Finally, the battle lines are being drawn," Kirchick writes ". Earlier this week, Carlson said the controversy over his parley with Fuentes is really 'a fight over what happens after Donald Trump.' He's right."

Read Jamie Kirchick's full Washington Post article at this link (subscription required).

Following a long list of Democratic victories on Tuesday night, November 4, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana) argued that the election results weren't a big deal. New Jersey and Virginia are blue states, Johnson insisted — and the fact that Democrats won their gubernatorial races, he said, wasn't surprising.

But Virginia is a swing state with a Republican governor, Glenn Youngkin — not a deep blue state. And while New Jersey — where Democratic nominee Mikie Sherrill won by double digits — is blue, isn't deep blue like Massachusetts, Maryland or California.

CNN's Harry Enten offered analysis of the election results on Thursday morning, November 6. And he emphasized that President Donald Trump was a key factor in Tuesday's many Democratic victories.

"I think there are a lot of Republicans who saw those polls that showed Donald Trump low nationally, and they didn't necessarily believe them," Enten told CNN's Sara Sidner. "But for Democrats, those polls are real. And they are spectacular."

Enten pointed to election data on a screen, comparing election results in Virginia and New Jersey's gubernatorial races for 2017 and 2025. In New Jersey in 2017, Enten noted, 82 percent of voters who disapproved of Trump went Democratic; in 2025, the number was 93 percent. For Virginia, that number was 87 percent in 2017 compared to 92 percent in 2025.

Enten told Sidner, "If there is any idea that Republicans are going to be able to outrun Donald Trump's low approval ratings, this says nuh-uh — they're going to be like Impalas getting chased down in the African desert by a big lion…. The bottom line is this: what those results on Tuesday night showed us is that Donald Trump is absolutely a drag on Republican candidates in New Jersey and Virginia — likely nationwide…. If you are in a state where Donald Trump is underwater, you are in big, big trouble."

When Sidner asked Enten what the election results mean "nationally," he pointed to Trump's low approval ratings in polls from CNN, CBS News, ABC News and NBC News and noted how "underwater" he is. And Enten also pointed out that in retention elections, three Democratic Pennsylvania Supreme Court justices enjoyed landslide wins.

"My goodness gracious, he's down there with the Titanic," Enten told Sidner. "And this is what is turning in for the Republican Party. That result on Tuesday night was a Titanic proportion, just absolutely awful result. New Jersey, Virginia, Pennsylvania — in terms of those judgeships, those Supreme Court judgeships, essentially, you know, retaining those judges — all the Democratic candidates won…. What we are talking about at this particular point is Donald Trump is absolutely a drag."

Enten continued, "I spoke about it on Monday. That's what we thought was going to happen. And that is exactly what did happen. Donald Trump, at this point, is an absolute drag on these Republican candidates. We saw it on Tuesday night and nationally. I expect that result to hold because at this point, Donald Trump is at his Term 2 lows."

When Sidner pointed out that Democrats, on the whole, are unpopular in many polls, Enten pointed out that voters who have an unfavorable view of the Democratic Party voted for Virginia Gov.-elect Spanberger and New Jersey Gov-elect Sherrill in big numbers regardless.

According to Enten, Sherrill won 66 percent of voters who view the Democratic Party unfavorably; Spanberger won 56 percent of them."

"It doesn't necessarily matter, it turns out, that the Democrats are viewed that unfavorably," Enten told Sidner. "Because amongst those who like neither party, the Democrats ran away with it."

On Wednesday, November 5, the U.S. Supreme Court listened to oral arguments in Learning Resources v. Trump. At issue in the case is President Donald Trump's ability to unilaterally impose tariffs without input from Congress using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA), signed into law by President Jimmy Carter 48 years ago.

One of the MAGA arguments in support of Trump's trade policy is that President Ronald Reagan was a big supporter of tariffs; in fact, Reagan shared conservative economist Milton Friedman's view that steep tariffs were bad for both businesses and consumers.

Veteran conservative columnist Mona Charen, during the 1980s, actually worked in the Reagan White House, where she was a speechwriter for First Lady Nancy Reagan. And the Never Trumper is highly critical of Trump's trade policy in an article published on November 6.

Analyzing the November 5 testimony, Charen, now 68, speculates on how the justices might rule on Trump and tariffs.

"The question for the Court was whether IEEPA actually grants the president power to impose tariffs — though the word 'tariff' does not appear in the text of the law and no president has ever before interpreted the statute to grant taxing power," Charen explains. "The law does allow the president fairly wide latitude to 'investigate, regulate…. direct and compel…. prevent or prohibit' other actions in emergency situations. In the past, the law has been invoked to combat terrorism, narcotics trafficking, and cybercrime."

Charen continues, "Addressing the justices on Wednesday, Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that because the law grants the power to 'regulate' trade in certain emergencies, it must also include the power to tariff. But that's a huge leap, and the reason should be obvious to conservative justices who have claimed to be suspicious of overweening executive power."

The Never Trump conservative argues that Trump appointee Brett Kavanaugh is contradicting himself when it comes to a president's executive powers.

"During the oral argument for Biden v. Nebraska," Charen observes, "the 2023 case that struck down President Biden's student-loan forgiveness plan, Justice Brett Kavanaugh said that 'some of the biggest mistakes in the Court's history were deferring to assertions of executive emergency power,' while 'some of the finest moments in the Court's history were pushing back against presidential assertions of emergency power.' Yet when it came to Trump's imposition of crushing tariffs against every nation on the globe, Kavanaugh curled up at the feet of executive power like a purring cat. 'The tariff on India, right? That's designed to help settle the Russia-Ukraine war, as I understand it,' he said on Wednesday."

The Trump Administration's trade policy, Charen argues, blatantly ignores the powers that Congress has under the U.S. Constitution.

"Yes, the president has broad authority in the conduct of foreign policy and the courts are right to steer clear of interference," Charen writes. "But when the president claims sweeping authority to impose taxes (tariffs) without congressional approval, he obtains his own independent income stream and Congress becomes a nullity. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution specifically vests power in Congress to 'lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises.' And Article I, Section 7 specifies that 'All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.'"

Charen adds, "The Constitution carefully apportions power between the legislative and executive branches. The president is commander-in-chief, but the Congress must declare war. The president appoints judges, ambassadors, and other officers and negotiates treaties with foreign powers, but the Senate must give advice and consent."

Mona Charen's full article for The Bulwark is available at this link.

In his new book "Woke Is Dead: How Common Sense Triumphed in an Age of Total Madness," conservative television journalist Piers Morgan offers a scathing critique of the "woke" movement and "cancel culture."

Morgan discussed the book during a Wednesday, November 5 appearance on MSNBC's "Morning Joe." The host of the YouTube show "Piers Morgan Uncensored" had a lot to say about "cancel culture" and "wokeness" on the left, but conservative host Joe Scarborough wanted to know if Morgan applied those same criticisms to the Trump Administration.

Morgan said of the "woke" movement on the left, "I think we went slightly insane. And my message to my liberal friends was: Look, liberalism is not what you're doing. What you're doing, ironically, is a kind of new form of fascism. You're basically setting up a narrow worldview. And if people don't align absolutely to it, then we're going to vilify you, shame you, we're going to cancel you. We're going to destroy you, as we've seen horrifically with people like Charlie Kirk. We're going to kill you, right? This is fascism. And yet, they love to call the right fascists. They love to call them Nazis and so on."

Morgan, originally from the UK, added that some Democrats, including former President Barack Obama, were highly critical of left-wing "cancel culture." And he described "free speech" as "tolerating views, actually, you may hate."

Scarborough, a Never Trump conservative and former GOP congressman, didn't disagree with Morgan's criticism of "cancel culture" and "wokeness" on the left. But when the "Morning Joe" host brought up the Trump Administration's push to "cancel" people who were critical of Kirk's political views, he wanted to know where Morgan stood. And Morgan made it clear that he disliked the way Trump officials went after late-night host Jimmy Kimmel over comments he made about MAGA following Kirk's murder.

Morgan told Scarborough and co-host Mika Brzezinski, "There was a really interesting thing after Charlie Kirk's murder with the Jimmy Kimmel issue, for example, where I looked at people on the right and thought, 'This is going to be a real test of how you respond to what the Jimmy Kimmel scandal, if you want to call it, was all about. And it was interesting: the ones who stepped up and were true to their actual beliefs that they espoused about free speech, and those who immediately given the first opportunity to show what they believe this, then said the complete opposite."

Scarborough responded, "Yes, they became what they hated. I will say, (Sen.) Ted Cruz actually said: If we do it to them, they're going to do it to us."

This Wednesday, October 5, the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump — a case involving President Donald Trump's ability to unilaterally impose steep tariffs via executive order based on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA). The High Court is also grappling with these issues in a companion case, Trump v. V.O.S. Selections.

MSNBC legal analyst Lisa Rubin, in an article published ahead of the oral arguments, examines the issues at play in the tariffs cases and emphasizes that the outcome will have major implications for both the presidency and Congress.

"IEEPA, enacted in 1977, gives the president the authority to respond to any 'unusual and extraordinary threat…. to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States' if he declares a national emergency concerning that threat," Rubin explains. "And once he declares such an emergency, the president can investigate, regulate, or prohibit, among other things, any imports or exports. In defending Trump's tariffs before the Supreme Court, the Justice Department has pointed to several Trump executive orders declaring national emergencies."

Rubin continues, "One of those orders centered around goods trade deficits, which Trump has said hampered production of goods domestically and has compromised national security and military readiness. In declaring it a national emergency, Trump also ordered reciprocal tariffs: A ten percent universal tariff and additional, country-specific tariffs ranging from 11 to 50 percent."

At issue "before the Court," Rubin notes, "is whether the president has the power to 'regulate' tariffs.

"Opponents of Trump's tariff actions characterize them as a tax that only Congress can impose; the administration, on the other hand, insists that taxes are a form of regulation — and can rely on some founding-era writings, as well as an early Supreme Court opinion, to frame tariffs as regulation, not taxes or duties," the MSNBC legal expert notes. "But there's more: If the Court finds that the IEEPA does give Trump broad tariff authority, it will also need to determine whether the Act itself is unconstitutional in giving the president — rather than Congress — the power to wield it…. The stakes are high, not only for Trump's economic agenda, but also, for his vision of presidential power."

Rubin adds, "But don't expect to have any answers right away, as a decision could be weeks or even months down the road."

Lisa Rubin's full article for MSNBC is available at this link.

After former President Joe Biden was sworn into office in 2021, he picked a seasoned veteran with a very long resumé to head the Pentagon: former Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin. President Donald Trump, in contrast, chose someone who had served in the military but was best known for being a Fox News host: Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

Under Hegseth's watch, the Pentagon has been inundated with chaos. And the chaos continued when Trump nominated Austin Dahmer as assistant secretary of defense for strategy, plans, and capabilities.

According to the Daily Beast's Isabel van Brugen, GOP lawmakers "clashed with" Dahmer during a Senate confirmation hearing on Tuesday, November 4.

"The striking intra-party revolt erupted on Capitol Hill as senators assailed one of President Trump's picks for a senior role at the United States Department of Defense," van Brugen reports. "Austin Dahmer…. was ripped to shreds over several major policy decisions, including the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Romania, suspending some assistance to war-torn Ukraine, and for being difficult to reach. The fiery exchanges, during a confirmation hearing for Trump's Pentagon nominees on Tuesday, exposed cracks in the party which typically displays a united front."

Van Brugen reports Sen. Rick Scott (R-Florida) "accused Dahmer of lying that Congress had been briefed multiple times on the decision to reduce the U.S. troop presence in Europe by moving to pull out a brigade of U.S. troops from Romania, including at an air base."

"About 1000 U.S. troops will remain in the country, and Romanian President Nicușor Dan has described the move as 'a strategic reconfiguration, not a withdrawal,'" van Brugen explains. " But some fear that the decreased U.S. military presence could undermine security in the region and embolden Moscow to expand Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, which Trump is desperately trying to put an end to…. Sen. Roger Wicker, the committee chair, also said the briefings did not take place. 'Where did you get that information?' he asked, pausing the hearing."

Van Brugen adds, "Dahmer suggested the situation resulted from a miscommunication. A frustrated Sen. Dan Sullivan said he and other Republican lawmakers 'can’t even get a response…. and we're on your team.'"

After more than a month, the partial shutdown of the United States' federal government drags on. President Donald Trump is calling for Senate Republicans to "get rid of the filibuster" in order to get a spending bill passed and end the shutdown, but many conservatives are uncomfortable with that idea.

Frustrated Americans were hoping that Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-South Dakota) had found enough votes to get a bill passed in the Senate. But Punchbowl News' Andrew Desiderio, in a November 5 post on X, formerly Twitter, reported, "Thune on the filibuster post-Trump breakfast: 'I know where the votes are. The answer is, there aren't the votes.'"

Reporting from CBS News' Caitlin Huey-Burns is consistent with Desiderio's.

Huey-Burns tweeted, "Thune after meeting with Trump at the [White House] just told us there is still no appetite to get rid of the filibuster. The votes are not there. He said Trump may be able to sway some senators on that but not enough."

Semafor's Burgess Everett, formerly of Twitter, tweeted, "Thune says Trump may be able to move some GOP senators on the filibuster but adds: 'I know where math is on this issue in the Senate. It's just not happening.'"

When Democrats enjoyed a sweeping blue wave in the Tuesday, November 4 elections, political strategists were shocked not only by the many Democratic victories, but also, by the margins of those victories. The New Jersey gubernatorial race was expected to be close, based on polls. But the Democratic nominee, Rep. Mikie Sherrill, won by double digits — as did Democratic gubernatorial nominee Abigail Spanberger in Virginia, a key swing state.

During a November 5 appearance on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" the next day, journalist David Drucker argued, "It's not the Democratic victories; it's the breadth of the victories." And he got no argument from conservative host Joe Scarborough, who stressed that there was very little good news for Republicans on Election Night 2025.

One of Scarborough's big takeaways on the election results is that President Donald Trump, by living in a "bubble" and only talking to obsequious loyalists, condemned the GOP to a long list of Election Night failures.

The Never Trump conservative and former GOP congressman told co-host Mika Brzezinski and Politico's Jonathan Martin, "The right track/wrong track numbers are horrific. One-third of Americans think we're going in the right direction; two-thirds of Americans think we are going in the wrong direction. Donald Trump's approval numbers on the economy: worse than Joe Biden's. Now, Donald can say it's the best economy we've ever had. But in this CNN poll, only 37 percent — here's his approval rating. But you look at some polls on his approval rating on the economy, and poll after poll after poll, they are his worst approval rating numbers ever."

Scarborough continued, "But he's in a bubble. He does not want to hear from anybody that's going to tell him the truth…. And so, the question is: What do Republicans do with a president like that?.... His White House staff in the first term was more willing to speak truth to him."

Martin interjected that Republicans "will never confront him in public" about either the economy of his poll numbers.

"But even privately," Martin told Scarborough and Brzezinski, I don't know that they have the spine to say what needs to be said."

When Donald Trump chose then-Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio) as his running mate in the United States' 2024 presidential race, white nationalist and Holocaust denier Nick Fuentes was quick to attack Vance for being married to a non-white woman: Usha Vance, an Indian-American Hindu, accomplished attorney, and a vegetarian. Fuentes came right out and called the now-vice president a traitor to the white race — a statement that many liberals and progressives described as a MAGA firebrand saying the quiet part out loud.

Regardless, Usha Vance has tried to fit into MAGA World now that her husband is VP in the second Trump Administration. But The Guardian's Arwa Mahdawi, in her November 5 opinion column, argues that efforts to give Usha Vance a MAGA makeover are awkward and clumsy at best.

Usha Vance's background, Mahdawi stresses, doesn't make her a good fit for MAGA at all.

"Usha Vance is a very clever woman with terrible taste in men," the liberal Guardian columnist laments. "The Yale and Cambridge-educated lawyer quit her job at a prestigious DC firm the same day her husband was picked to be Donald Trump's running mate. She trailed after him on the campaign trail, smiling for the cameras. A former Democrat, she aligned herself with Trump, a man her husband once called 'America's Hitler.' In exchange for her loyalty, the second lady now has a taxpayer-funded mansion, regular trips in a private jet, and a husband who acknowledges white supremacist attacks on her — saying 'Don't attack my wife' — but has failed to condemn them head on."

Mahdawi adds, "Speaking during an event at the University of Mississippi last Wednesday, the vice-president said that he hoped his wife, raised in a Hindu household, would convert to Christianity. JD, by the way, used to be an atheist, then converted to Catholicism in 2019, saying he 'really liked that the Catholic Church was just really old.'"

The columnist, however, is critical of Usha Vance as well, describing her as someone who is "happy to trade her dignity for power."

"You know what seems disgusting, JD: saying that you hope the woman you married in a Christian-Hindu ceremony abandons something apparently important to her," Mahdawi writes. "Usha Vance is no victim. She's ambitious and a major force in JD's meteoric rise. She's just as implicated in America's slide towards autocracy and embrace of bigotry as he is. Still, you have to wonder if she has moments of doubt."

Arwa Mahdawi's full column for The Guardian is available at this link.

On Wednesday, November 5 — the day after the United States' 2025 off-year elections — the U.S. Supreme Court will be hearing oral arguments in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, a case involving President Donald Trump's ability to unilaterally impose tariffs via executive order under the Emergency Powers Act of 1977.

Many Democrats are hoping that the High Court will rule against Trump in the case, but opposition is coming from the right as well — including a group called the Liberty Justice Institute.

According to Washington Post reporter Kat Zakrzewski, the Institute is generously funding the anti-tariffs argument from the right.

"President Donald Trump is used to battles at the Supreme Court against liberal advocacy groups," Zakrzewski explains in an article published on November 4. "But Wednesday's high-stakes argument over his tariff policy features a very different foe — a legal center funded without public disclosure by some of the country's wealthiest conservatives. The cases on which the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments were brought by small businesses, which argue that Trump's tariffs have harmed them by raising their costs."

Zakrzewski adds, "Standing behind them, however — and paying for some of the high-priced legal talent — is the Liberty Justice Center, a nonprofit group with a libertarian-leaning agenda that has previously challenged public-sector unions and sued to prevent the ban on TikTok from taking effect."

According to Zakrzewski, prominent conservatives are funding the Liberty Justice Center.

"Liberty Justice Center does not disclose the names of its donors," the reporter notes, "but a Washington Post analysis of tax filings found that since 2020, it has received money from Donors Trust, the Walton Family Foundation and the Bradley Foundation, all of which have been prominent conservative donors. Donors Trust is a fund that receives money from wealthy donors whose identities are not disclosed and steers it toward conservative causes."

Zakrzewski continues, "The group has frequently backed organizations associated with Federalist Society co-Chairman Leonard Leo, who counseled Trump on judicial picks during his first presidential term, but whom Trump denounced in May, in part because of the tariff case. Liberty Justice Center is also listed as a national partner of the State Policy Network, a network of conservative nonprofit organizations with links to Charles and David Koch that also receives funding from Donors Trust."

Read Kat Zakrzewski's full Washington Post article at this link (subscription required).

In his articles for the conservative website The Bulwark and appearances on MSNBC, retired Gen. Mark Hertling — former commander of U.S. Army Europe — is often critical of President Donald Trump's foreign policy. And he isn't shy about saying that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, a former Fox News host, is woefully unqualified to lead the Pentagon.

Hertling zeroes in on two countries, Nigeria and Romania, in an article published by The Bulwark on November 4 — and argues that Trump and Hegseth are failing both countries badly.

"Last week, the Trump Administration made two major national-security announcements that, taken together, capture just a bit of its incoherence," Hertling observes. "First came word from the secretary of defense that U.S. forces would be withdrawn from bases in Romania — bases that anchor NATO's southeastern flank and project stability into the Black Sea region — because, as Pentagon officials put it, America must 'refocus on defending the homeland' and 'prepare for a future confrontation with China.' Then, only hours later, the president mused on social media that he might need to send American forces into Nigeria — Nigeria? — to 'protect Christians' from persecution."

Hertling continues, "As confounding and shocking as those statements were individually, together they imply something far more dangerous: a scattershot national-security process that lurches from one impulse to the next, untethered to strategy, alliance, or reality. You don't strengthen the homeland by pulling back from Europe's frontline. You don't deter China by announcing a religiously defined military intervention in Africa. And you certainly don't project global leadership by letting strategic whiplash substitute for deliberate planning."

Hertling is especially critical of Trump's "protect Christians" rhetoric in relation to Nigeria — as it sounds like he is threatening military action based on religion.

"The president's seemingly offhand suggestion to send troops to Nigeria to 'protect Christians' may play well to certain domestic evangelical audiences," Hertling warns. "But to anyone who has studied, served, or spent time in this region, it is strategically unsound and operationally unworkable. I've been to Nigeria both as a military officer and more recently as a civilian with a U.S. health care organization that was partnering with a medical facility in Abuja, Nigeria's capital. This is a dynamic, deeply religious country of more than 230 million people, divided roughly evenly between Muslims and Christians."

Hertling continues, "Additionally, Nigerians are overwhelmingly pro-American, proud of their democracy, and fiercely protective of their sovereignty…. To describe this as a campaign of religious persecution is to mistake the symptom for the disease. Which leads me to believe that any U.S. military intervention framed around 'protecting Christians' would not only misread the problem — it would inflame it. Nigeria's constitution — much like ours — forbids establishing a state religion."

Retired U.S. Army Gen. Mark Hertling's full article for The Bulwark is available at this link.

This Tuesday night, November 4, political strategists will be closely watching the returns in a variety of elections — from gubernatorial battles in Virginia and New Jersey to New York City's mayoral race to three Pennsylvania State Supreme Court retention races.

Also in Pennsylvania: Philadelphia's district attorney race, with progressive DA Larry Krasner expected to win a third term. Meanwhile, across the United States in California, voters will be deciding the redistricting ballot measure Proposition 50.

All of these races are, to a degree, a referendum on Donald Trump's second presidency.

Although Trump is applauding GOP gerrymandering efforts in Texas and other states, he is angrily denouncing Proposition 50.

In a November 4 post on his Truth Social platform, Trump posted, "The Unconstitutional Redistricting Vote in California is a GIANT SCAM in that the entire process, in particular the Voting itself, is RIGGED. All 'Mail-In' Ballots, where the Republicans in that State are 'Shut Out,' is under very serious legal and criminal review. STAY TUNED!"

Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom responded to Trump's post on X, formerly Twitter.

Newsom tweeted, "The ramblings of an old man that knows he's about to LOSE."

Newsom's tweet is generating a lot of responses.

Proposition 50 supporter Pramod Sharma posted, "You're spot on! Trump's claims are baseless rants from a sore loser. Prop 50 protects CA's democracy by countering GOP gerrymandering, ensuring fair representation. Support Newsom's fight for integrity —vote YES on 50!"

Another X user, Peter A. Patriot, wrote, "Every time he starts screaming 'rigged,' you know the polls are bad. The louder the tantrum, the closer the loss. This isn't strategy anymore. It's fear."

Founded in Nigeria in 2002 — the year after the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon — Boko Haram has been a frequent source of violence in that country for 23 years. The far-right jihadist group, often compared to al-Qaeda, favors overthrowing Nigeria's democratic republic and replacing it with an Islamist dictatorship governed by strict fundamentalist Shariah law — specifically, a Sunni version. Boko Haram has a long history of violent attacks on both Christians and Muslims (including Shiites as well as fellow Sunnis they consider too liberal).

U.S. President Donald Trump is now threatening military action against Boko Haram, vowing to "protect Christians." And his messaging is specifically focused on Christianity, not Sunni and Shiite Muslims in Nigeria who fear Boko Haram.

In an article published on November 4, Salon's Heather Digby Parton examines the influence that far-right white fundamentalist evangelicals and "Christian nationalists" are having on Trump's Nigeria policy. And one of them is Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

"Whatever the case, this appears to be based upon misinformation," Parton explains. "Nigeria is dealing with the Boko Haram extremist group, which does target Christians. But it also threatens Muslims who don't accept its radical form of Islam, as well as those who are sympathetic to the Nigerian government. Most experts and analysts reject the assertion that this is some kind of Christian genocide. Trump may have wanted to give a little something to his 'cherished Christians,' as he sometimes refers to his evangelical supporters, but Hegseth is a much more interesting case."

Parton continues, "This is, after all, a man who wrote a book called 'American Crusade,' which The Guardian described as 'depicting Islam as a natural, historic enemy of the west; presents distorted versions of Muslim doctrine in Great Replacement-style racist conspiracy theories; treats leftists and Muslims as bound together in their efforts to subvert the U.S.; and idolizes medieval crusaders."

Parton warns that evangelical Hegseth embraces an extreme form of far-right Christian fundamentalism. In this book, the former Fox News host calls for "followers of Christ to take up the sword in defense of their faith."

"Hegseth is also a member of an extreme far-right sect called the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches that also believes in militant Christianity," Parton warns. "It's heavily influenced by reconstructionism, a theology that religion scholar Julie Ingersoll describes as believing 'it's the job of Christians to exercise dominion over the whole world.' In short, Hegseth is a serious Christian nationalist, and there could be nothing more satisfying for him than to muster a fighting force to wage war against Muslims in a foreign land in the name of Jesus Christ."

Parton continues, "It sounds medieval, and it is…. Whether they will follow through on this is anyone's guess. At some point, one might hope that a few of the Christians who are clamoring for the U.S. to go into Nigeria with 'guns-a-blazing' might spare a thought for their fellow followers of Christ who are being terrorized every single day right here in America at the hands of an oppressive government that is deporting them to face certain persecution."

Heather Digby Parton's full article for Salon is available at this link.

On Halloween Night 2025, President Donald Trump held a Great Gatsby-themed party at Mar-a-Lago, complete with 1920s dresses, headbands, dancers and Prohibition-era nostalgia.

F. Scott Fitzgerald's famous novel "The Great Gatsby," published 100 years ago in 1925, captured the hedonism of The Jazz Age and, in 1974, was adapted into a movie starring Robert Redford as Long Island millionaire Jay Gatsby and Mia Farrow as his ex-lover Daisy Buchanan. But while Fitzgerald's novel and the Redford film took a critical look at the excesses of the 1920s, Trump's Halloween bash is being attacked as "tone-deaf" for celebrating them at a time when millions of Americans are losing Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits.

Liberal economist Paul Krugman, in a November 4 column for his Substack page, strongly disagrees with Trump's Gatsby party being called "tone-deaf" — as he believes that the president and his MAGA allies flaunt their indifference to the suffering of others.

"There's been plenty of scathing commentary about the lavish, Great Gatsby-themed Halloween party Donald Trump threw at Mar a Lago — a party complete with sequined, feathered dancers and, yes, a scantily-clad woman in a giant martini glass," Krugman argues. "The party, held just hours before 42 million Americans were about to lose federal food assistance, as 1.4 million federal workers are going without pay, was grotesque. It was also, like everything Trump, unspeakably vulgar. But many commenters described the festivities as 'tone-deaf,' as if Trump didn't realize how it would look to be holding such a party as tens of millions of Americans are facing severe hardship."

Krugman continues, "C'mon. Of course he realized how it would look. He understood perfectly well that he was partying while ordinary Americans were suffering. And that understanding — combined with the belief that he can get away with it — was a big reason he enjoyed the event."

The former New York Times columnist notes that in 2018, The Atlantic's Adam Serwer wrote an anti-Trump article that was headlined "The Cruelty Is the Point." Serwer's arguments, Krugman stresses, still apply to Trump seven years later.

"Serwer was thinking of working-class and middle-class Trump supporters, many of whom are voting against their own economic interests," Krugman writes. "But you can see the same joy in cruelty, not just in Trump, but in most of his top minions — from Stephen Miller and JD Vance to Tom Homans, Kristi Noem, Pam Bondi and Pete Hegseth. All of them clearly take a smirking satisfaction in their ability to stick it to the poor and powerless."

Krugman continues, "What about the guests at the party? What about the oligarchs abasing themselves at Trump's feet? Some of them may share in the cruelty of Trump's inner circle. Most probably just don't care about other people's suffering, certainly not enough to risk Trump's wrath by protesting or even failing to show up. So, to repeat, the party at Mar-a-Lago wasn't a case of tone deafness, living it up despite others' suffering. It was in large part a party held to celebrate others' suffering."

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

When Donald Trump, during one of his campaign rallies, declared, "I love the poorly educated," that type of populist-right messaging was a radical departure from pre-MAGA conservatism. Republicans, for decades, praised the ultra-rich as "job creators" and "exceptionalists" while attacking recipients of public assistance — from food stamps, now the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), to Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) — as people who gamed the system.

Trump, now nine and one-half months into his second presidency, still paints himself as a populist. But Salon's Chauncey DeVega, in a biting article published on November 4, points to the interruption of SNAP benefits as a stark example of MAGA Republicans' indifference to hunger and poverty.

"Over the weekend," DeVega explains, "more than 42 million Americans did not receive their Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits. Tens of millions of children, the elderly, disabled and other vulnerable people now face a brutal fact: They don't have enough to eat…. Poverty and hunger are forms of structural violence that stunt lives, limit upward social mobility and raise the odds that a hungry child will one day end up in prison. They cause a range of physical, emotional and psychological harm, including shortened lives and death."

"Poverty," DeVega laments, is a "public police choice" — and MAGA Republicans, he says, are choosing to promote "poverty" as well as "hunger."

"Beneath the fact of poverty in America lies something even more ominous: the ideology of necropolitics," DeVega argues. "In necropolitics, governance is primarily viewed through a Social Darwinist lens of survival of the fittest, where certain populations and groups are deemed disposable by the punitive and punishing state. The attempts to cut off SNAP benefits and other assistance for marginalized and vulnerable people, along with an historic government shutdown that is causing economic misery for millions, reinforce how necropolitics is the dominant strain of Trump's political ideology…. The left, along with traditional Never Trump conservatives, often have a difficult time understanding, never mind accepting, that MAGA is animated by necropolitics and a general disregard for the common good and universal human rights that are foundational for democracy and a humane society. But this is the bleak reality of the Trumpian Gilded Age."

Chauncey DeVega's full article for Salon is available at this link.

This Wednesday, November 5, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in challenges to President Donald Trump's ability to unilaterally impose steep new tariffs under the Emergency Powers Act of 1977

Trump's critics are arguing that according to the U.S. Constitution, he needs the input of Congress to impose these tariffs and cannot act unilaterally. But Trump and members of his administration claim that his executive powers give him the right to determine trade policy.

It remains to be seen how the High Court will ultimately rule in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, but according to Politico reporters Megan Messerly, Doug Palmer, Daniel Desrochers and Ari Hawkins, the Trump Administration has a "Plan B" in case the justices do not rule in their favor.

"Aides have spent weeks strategizing how to reconstitute the president's global tariff regime if the Court rules that he exceeded his authority," the Politico journalists explain in an article published on November 4. "They're ready to fall back on a patchwork of other trade statutes to keep pressure on U.S. trading partners and preserve billions in tariff revenue, according to six current and former White House officials and others familiar with the administration's thinking, some of whom were granted anonymity to share details of private conversations…. Behind the scenes, trade and legal advisers have modeled what a partial loss might look like — where the Court upholds the use of the 1977 law in some circumstances but not others — and what other legal means might be available to achieve similar ends."

The reporters add, "However, those alternatives are slower, narrower and, in some cases, similarly vulnerable to legal challenge, leaving even White House allies to acknowledge the administration's tariff strategy is on shakier ground than it is willing to publicly concede."

Messerly, Palmer, Desrochers and Hawkins note that "even a partial loss" at the High Court "would make it much harder for the president to use tariffs as an all-purpose tool for extracting concessions on a number of issues, from muscling foreign companies to make investments in the U.S. to pressuring countries into reaching peace agreements."

A supporter of Trump's trade policies, interviewed on condition of anonymity, believes there is a strong policy that SCOTUS — where GOP-appointed justices have a hard-right 6-3 supermajority — will rule in the president's favor.

That source told Politico, "There's no other legal authority that will work as quickly or give the president the flexibility he wanted. They seem very confident that they're going to win. I don't see why they're confident at all. Two different courts that have ruled extremely harshly on this."

Read the full Politico article at this link.

During his first presidency, Donald Trump bitterly clashed with a long list of traditional conservatives who media figures often described as "the adults in the room" — including a secretary of state (Rex Tillerson), a U.S. attorney general (Jeff Sessions), a secretary of defense (Jim Mattis), a White House chief of staff (Gen. John F. Kelly), and a national security director (John Bolton). Trump's third White House press secretary, Stephanie Grisham, even ended up endorsing presidential nominee Kamala Harris at the 2024 Democratic National Convention in Chicago.

But Trump's second administration, dominated by loyalists, is much more MAGA across the board. And according to Never Trump conservative Tom Nichols, those "adults in the room" from the first Trump Administration are nowhere to be found this time

In an article published by The Atlantic on November 3, Nichols compares the second Trump Administration to a group of unhinged "bullies and mean girls."

"The United States is now a nation run by public servants who behave no better than internet trolls, deflecting criticism with crassness and obscenity," Nichols laments. "The White House press secretary answers a question from a member of the free press — a serious question about who planned a meeting between the American and Russian presidents — by saying, 'Your mom did.' The secretary of defense cancels DEI and other policies by saying, 'We are done with that s——.' The vice president calls an interlocutor on social media a 'dips——.'"

Nichols continues, "The president of the United States himself, during mass protests against his policies, responds by posting an AI-generated video of himself flying a jet fighter over his fellow citizens and dumping feces on their heads. These are not the actions of mature adults. They are examples of crude people displaying their incompetence as they flail about in jobs — including the presidency — for which they are not qualified."

In Trump's second administration, Nichols argues, competence is irrelevant — all that matters is "loyalty" to Trump.

"When the U.S. military kills people at sea and (Vice President JD) Vance, responding to a charge that such actions might be war crimes, responds, 'I don’t give a s– what you call it,' the goal is not just to boost Vance's hairy-chest cred — it's also to grind others down into accepting the idea of extrajudicial executions," Nichols warns. "The collapse of a superpower into a regime of bullies and mean girls and comic-book guys explains much about why American democracy is on the ropes, reeling from the attacks of people who, in a better time, would never have been allowed near the government of the United States."

Tom Nichols full article for The Atlantic is available at this link.

Rep. Nancy Mace (R-South Carolina) once again finds herself in the middle of a controversy — this time, for a tirade against airport workers and police officers on Thursday, October 30 in Charleston, where, CNN reported, she was allegedly "loudly cursing" and calling them "f—— incompetent." The officers and TSA workers were escorting Mace to her flight.

Mace (whose detractors typically describe her as the "Karen of Congress") is drawing a great deal of criticism for acting that way during the partial shutdown of the United States' federal government, which finds many air traffic controllers and other government employees working without pay. But instead of apologizing, Mace doubled down both on social media and during an appearance on Fox Business.

In a Monday, November 3 post on X, formerly Twitter, the GOP lawmaker wrote, "We notified airport security with the exact time, location, and vehicle details. They never showed. We did our jobs — they didn't."

Mace, in a separate tweet, wrote, "If Charleston airport continues to lie, we will continue to expose the lies. Here is a snapshot of text messages between my employees and the Charleston Airport regarding my arrival. WE WILL NOT TOLERATE LIES. Feel free to correct your lame 'incident' reports at any point. HOLD THE LINE."

The fact that Mace is aggressively defending her behavior without apology is generating a lot of comments on X, many of them quite negative.

X user Aunt Smartassy tweeted, "I just watched Nancy Mace try to blame everyone for her behavior last Thursday at the Charleston SC airport but herself."

Journalist Aaron Rupar, tweeting the Fox Business interview, posted, "Nancy Mace blames cops for her airport meltdown."

The House Homeland Security Committee Democrats wrote, "Not only did Republicans shut down the government and force 52,000 TSA officers to work without pay — now their deranged members are screaming at them in airports. Nancy Mace didn't have an 'interaction.' She threw a tantrum at unpaid workers just trying to do their jobs."

Novelist Paul Rudnick wrote, "Authenticated photo of Nancy Mace shrieking curses at police officers she'd demanded escort her to a flight at the Charleston airport."

Conservative South Carolina gubernatorial candidate Alan Wilson, who is running against Mac, posted, "Nancy Mace didn't face a security issue. She threw an entitled temper tantrum after showing up late at the wrong entrance and then tried to blame officers. Threatening law enforcement for her own mistake is disgraceful. She owes them an apology."

GOP strategist Wesley Donehue tweeted, "Nancy Mace just now on Fox Business. WOW! This is what she does. Every single time. She loses her s– and then plays the victim. She's the worst human I know. Truly an evil piece of s——."

NBC News' Scott Wong wrote, "Nancy Mace at news conference this morning, addressing her verbal altercation with Charleston airport police and TSA agents after a mix-up about escorting her through VIP security entrance: 'Last Thursday morning, I absolutely 100% confronted the airport employees who put my safety at risk,' Mace said. 'Did I drop an F bomb? I hope I did. Did I call them incompetent? If I didn't, they absolutely earned it.'"

With the partial shutdown of the United States' federal government dragging on after more than a month, millions of Americans who rely on SNAP (the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) to buy groceries fear becoming food-insecure. And food banks are feeling overwhelmed as they struggle to help out.

MSNBC's Ana Cabrera has been doing a series of interviews with struggling Americans who use SNAP benefits, which were known as "food stamps" in the past. On Monday morning, November 3, Cabrera interviewed Danielle Rodriguez, a single mother in Pennsylvania who now finds herself without the $400 per month in food assistance she uses to feed her two kids.

Asked if she received "any SNAP funds for November?," Rodriguez told Cabrera, "No, I did not receive any benefits at all…. And they said there is no promise of even getting any type of benefits for November."

Rodriguez explained, "Unfortunately, I've had to reach out to my utility companies and stuff like that to go on payments to use some of my bill money to buy groceries for me and my kids….. It's very stressful being a single mom of two kids. I have a nine-year-old, and she is offering her piggybank money. And she's like, 'Mommy, do you want my piggybank money to help with groceries?' And it's sad to hear my child say that to me because I'm Mom — I'm supposed to do everything. I'm supposed to be their protector."

Rodriguez continued, "And I will make it happen. But it's just it's heartbreaking to hear that, you know, all these little faces are looking at their parents so stressed out, like, how are mommy and daddy going to, you know, make ends meet? And that should be the least of their worries."

The Pennsylvania resident noted that she now has to "budget even more than I already budget."

Rodriguez told Cabrera, "We just have to like cut back a little bit. But we will have food; if that means I've got to go stand in lines at food banks, then I will. Like I was saying, I have a nine-year-old, but I also have a 14-month-old who just, you know, just got off formula — and now, she eats regular table food. And so, it's portioning out everything to make it stretch further….. But I just tell her just, you know, this is, unfortunately, how life is…. What's going on is our legislators need to look at the little faces of these kids and understand, OK, we really need to push and fight more for the children."