Trump 2 - The Latremie Post

Only Reduced Food Stamps Benefits Will Be Issued, and May Take Months to Get To You

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced on Monday that it will pay about half of November benefits for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). However, the department warned that benefits could take months to flow to recipients. This update came in a brief submitted to a federal court in Rhode Island.

### Partial Payment Amid Shutdown

The USDA’s four-page report responded to U.S. District Chief Judge John J. McConnell Jr.’s order. The judge instructed President Donald Trump’s administration to pay at least a portion of benefits to the 42 million people who receive SNAP assistance by the end of Wednesday, despite the ongoing government shutdown.

Notably, the USDA’s action did not clarify what would happen if the shutdown continues beyond November.

### Political Backlash

Leading Democrats in Congress sharply criticized the administration’s decision to pay only part of the monthly benefits. They accused President Trump of willfully denying food assistance to needy Americans.

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York said, “Providing partial benefits is not enough, is not compliant with the law, and it’s particularly cruel of Trump with the Thanksgiving season around the corner.”

### Judge’s Options and USDA’s Choice

On Saturday, Judge McConnell laid out two options for the administration:

– Pay partial benefits by the end of Wednesday using a contingency fund that currently has about $4.65 billion available.
– Pay full month benefits by utilizing other reserve sources, such as funds from the child nutrition program, by the end of Monday.

The USDA chose to use the contingency fund, giving the department until Wednesday to distribute benefits.

### Delays Expected in Benefit Distribution

Patrick A. Penn, USDA’s deputy under secretary for food, nutrition, and consumer services, noted that administrative hurdles in calculating and delivering half-month benefits could delay payments “anywhere from a few weeks to up to several months.”

According to the status report, USDA began the process of resuming payments on Monday to comply with Judge McConnell’s order. The report stated:

> “USDA will fulfill its obligation to expend the full amount of SNAP contingency funds today by generating the table required for States to calculate the benefits available for each eligible household in that State. USDA will therefore have made the necessary funds available and have authorized the States to begin disbursements once the table is issued.”

### Challenges in Processing Payments

While Judge McConnell acknowledged that calculating reduced benefits would take time, giving USDA until Wednesday if choosing the partial funding route, Penn said this timeline was insufficient. Some states have outdated systems for processing benefits, contributing to delays.

The federal government planned to provide updated benefit tables by Monday. States then need to send updated files to vendors who process benefits and load funds onto beneficiaries’ Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) cards used for groceries.

### A Lengthy Shutdown

Monday marked the 34th day of the federal government shutdown, which began October 1 after Congress failed to approve funding or pass a temporary spending bill. The U.S. Senate was expected to hold another procedural vote to advance the House-passed GOP stopgap bill that would fund the government at fiscal 2025 levels through November 21.

Democrats have opposed this measure to push for negotiations on expiring tax credits for Affordable Care Act marketplace health insurance buyers.

If the shutdown continued past Tuesday, it would tie the longest government shutdown in history, from 2018 to 2019.

### Contingency Fund Dispute

Before October ended, the administration had claimed it was legally barred from using the contingency fund, originally intended for natural disasters and emergencies, to pay SNAP benefits during the shutdown.

However, two federal judges ruled on October 31 that the USDA could and must use the fund to keep SNAP benefits flowing.

Saturday marked the first lapse in benefit payments since SNAP’s inception during President Lyndon B. Johnson’s War on Poverty.

Program advocates and experts warned that users would experience delays in receiving November benefits as the administration worked to restart payments.

### Funding and Spending Breakdown

Interestingly, this stance was a reversal from a USDA shutdown plan issued on September 30, which explicitly called for using the contingency fund to maintain benefits.

SNAP costs the federal government about $9 billion monthly. While USDA did not use the contingency fund to pay regular benefits, it spent approximately $750 million of the original $6 billion during October:

– $450 million for state administrative expenses
– $300 million for block grants to Puerto Rico and American Samoa

For November, USDA planned to spend $450 million on administrative expenses and $150 million for block grants, leaving about $4.65 billion available to pay benefits.

### Child Nutrition Funds Off-Limits

Deputy Under Secretary Penn also explained why USDA chose not to use funds from the child nutrition program to cover the SNAP shortfall, emphasizing the importance of preserving that fund.

> “Child Nutrition Program funds are not a contingency fund for SNAP,” he said. “Using billions of dollars from Child Nutrition for SNAP would leave an unprecedented gap in Child Nutrition funding that Congress has never had to fill with annual appropriations, and USDA cannot predict what Congress will do under these circumstances.”

The child nutrition program supports school meals, summer meals for children, and summer EBT benefits for low-income families. The school lunch program alone serves around 29 million children daily.

### Democratic Response: “Not Acceptable”

Democrats expressed dismay at the partial funding decision.

Senator Patty Murray of Washington state wrote on social media:

> “Just now paying the bare minimum to partially fund SNAP is not enough, and it is not acceptable. Trump should immediately work to fully fund benefits under the law.”

Rep. Rosa DeLauro, the ranking member of the House Appropriations panel, called the situation “entirely avoidable,” accusing Trump of using hungry children, seniors, and veterans as political pawns.

> “Now, only partial benefits will be sent out late, and families will go hungry, while this administration continues to host lavish parties for their billionaire donors and political allies,” DeLauro said.

She urged USDA to “put politics aside and use the money they have available to ensure families do not go hungry.”

### House Speaker Defends Administration

At a press conference Monday, U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson defended Trump’s handling of the SNAP payments.

He stated, “The president is desperate for SNAP benefits to flow to the American citizens who desperately rely upon it.”

Johnson echoed arguments by Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins that the agency was legally constrained from tapping the contingency fund if the underlying fund was suspended.

He blamed congressional Democrats for voting against the stopgap spending bill and noted that two judges who ordered payments to resume—Judge McConnell and Judge Indira Talwani of Massachusetts—were appointed by Democratic former President Barack Obama.

Judge Talwani ruled Friday that USDA’s pause on SNAP was illegal but gave the administration until Monday to respond before she considers forcing benefits to be paid despite the shutdown.

Johnson acknowledged the complexity of releasing funds:

> “It’s not as easy as hitting go on a computer. You’ve got to go through and recalculate partial payments to the 42 million recipients of the program. That puts a huge burden on states and on the feds to try to figure that out in short order.”

—

*Reporters: Jacob Fischler, Shauneen Miranda, Florida Phoenix.*
https://flaglerlive.com/only-reduced-food-stamps-benefits-will-be-issued-and-may-take-months-to-get-to-you/

Here is what it would take for me to join a No Kings rally (Opinion)

To all those who wrote me personally or sent a letter to the editor about my October 19th column, I’m glad you attended the No Kings rally. You’re right; the protest did succeed in providing participants a sense of community and a platform to voice concerns about Trump’s abuse of power.

The flawed optics, however, obscured the protest’s vital message and hardened the hearts of Trump supporters as I feared it would. In the future, protests against Trump’s unconstitutional actions must do more than simply amplify voices of resistance; they must ensure those voices are actually heard.

When I talk with people who ardently disagree with me, I do not try to make them see I am right. Rather, I aim to move them from “you’re wrong, Kafer” to “that’s reasonable. I can see why you feel that way.” This is a considerable step given that nobody wants to change his or her mind.

Reaching plausibility, the first step in persuasion, requires credibility and consistency. Thus, the next rally must present a more consistent, credible message to be heard beyond those who already agree.

### First, fix the signs.

Protest signs I saw included messages such as:
– “You ban books. You ban drag, yet kids are still in body bags,”
– “Defund Israel,”
– “Putin’s Puppet,”
– “Tax the Rich,”
– “Color is not a crime,” and
– “RFK’s brainworms died of starvation.”

There were also various flags—blue and pink, rainbow, Ukrainian, etc. All of this, and the costumes, made the protests appear to be catch-all leftist rallies rather than a unified movement against abuse of power.

Waving signs that read “Save due process,” “Protect the constitution,” “The 10th Amendment matters,” and “I didn’t support Biden’s abuses either” lack flair but they would be more likely to make Trump supporters question Trump’s abuses than a hodgepodge of off-message partisan policy preferences or over-the-top comparisons with mass-murdering dictators.

Signs reading “German soldiers were also just following orders!!!,” “Not my dictator,” and “No Nazis” are ridiculous. Remember, fear is a potent but risky tactic in persuasion. Too little has no impact, but too much is likely to evoke disbelief or fatalistic inaction. Nazi signs generate eye rolls, not credibility.

And while there is truth to the assertion that Trump behaves more like a monarch than a constitutionally-restrained elected official, the slogan “No Kings” evokes derision. Kings are not elected; Trump was. Kings don’t generally tolerate protests; they arrest protesters. There’s a reason there are few political marches in Brunei, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, or Eswatini, where royalty holds power.

### Second, the next rally must emphasize bipartisanship.

Don’t list dozens of leftist organizations on the website or on flyers because it only furthers the lie that protests were dominated by the far-left and protesters were paid for their participation. Organizers were paid, as they are for every large-scale event undertaken by the right or left, but participants were unpaid volunteers.

Any website or flyer should focus on volunteers, not those working on logistics.

### Lastly, save the costumes for Halloween.

While there were comparatively few frogs, unicorns, and dinosaurs in the crowd, they were the most noticeable participants. Perhaps silly costumes successfully combated false narratives about threatening, angry protesters as intended, but they also detracted from the seriousness of the message.

Did the guys dressed as Founding Fathers at Tea Party rallies during the Obama presidency make you more or less open to their message about the size and scope of the federal government? One of the reasons the 60s Civil Rights marches were so successful is that ambivalent Americans saw men and women in ties and dresses.

In the future, remember any strangely dressed person in the crowd will end up on camera and appear representative of the whole. Look like the people you want to influence.

Next time, if the message is more consistent and the messenger more credible, the protest will do more to multiply the number of concerned Americans rather than further divide.

I honked in solidarity as I drove by the Littleton No Kings rally. Perhaps next time, I will join.

—

*Kirsta Kafer is a Sunday Denver Post columnist. Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.*
https://www.denverpost.com/2025/11/03/no-kings-protests-trump-colorado-plausible/

‘Bowing down to him’: Supreme Court faces ‘awkward’ predicament in new Trump case

The New York Times reports that on Wednesday, the Supreme Court will “consider for the first time whether to say ‘no’” to President Donald Trump “in a lasting way” as they weigh in on the president’s use of emergency powers to impose sweeping tariffs on nearly every U.S. trading partner.

According to the Times, the case is a difficult one, made even more complex by Trump’s efforts to personalize the dispute. Observers of the court noted that the justices would be keenly aware that Mr. Trump would perceive a legal defeat as a personal blow.

Donald B. Verrilli Jr., who served as solicitor general during the Obama administration, agrees, saying, “You can’t help but think that that’s going to be hovering over the decision-making process in this case.”

So far, the Supreme Court’s six conservative justices have been receptive to Mr. Trump’s claims of presidential authority, the Times says. However, the tariffs case marks the first time the justices will weigh in on the underlying legal merits of Trump’s actions.

“At the end of this term, we’ll see wins and losses for Trump on presidential power,” said Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard Law School professor and former top Justice Department lawyer under George W. Bush. “This is the case I think is the closest, so I don’t know which way it will cut.”

The Times notes that this case has divided the conservative legal community. Trump’s lawyers argue that an obscure 1977 statute gives him broad authority to impose tariffs when he believes an emergency exists. However, that law does not specifically mention tariffs, taxes, or duties.

“Emergency powers are meant to be used in emergencies,” said Michael W. McConnell, a former federal appeals court judge nominated by President George W. Bush, who is leading a coalition of small businesses challenging the tariffs. “No Supreme Court would want to provoke a confrontation with a president of the United States unnecessarily, but on the other hand, the law is the law.”

University of Texas at Austin law professor Tara Lee Grove believes it may be “a stretch” to characterize trade deficits as an emergency. Still, she says the 1977 statute “is broad and appears to give the president a lot of discretion.”

“The justices will be struggling with whether they want to second-guess any presidential decision about an emergency,” Grove added.

Court observers have pointed to a dissenting opinion from Judge Richard G. Taranto, appointed by President Barack Obama, as a possible guidepost for the Supreme Court’s conservatives should they decide to back Trump. Taranto argued that Congress intentionally used broad language to give presidents flexibility, embodying “an eyes-open congressional grant of broad emergency authority in this foreign affairs realm.”

D. John Sauer, the solicitor general, stated that Trump’s use of the 1977 statute to impose tariffs was not an unlimited delegation of power and referenced Judge Taranto’s dissent ten times in his filing.

Grove notes that the court will face a “legitimacy dilemma” as they weigh the implications of their decision for the president’s legacy and the economy. “No matter what they do in this case, it will be painted as political,” she says.

Goldsmith believes the Supreme Court still maintains some integrity, but if Trump attends oral arguments as he has indicated, it could make the situation “awkward.”

“I doubt the court wants to be perceived as bowing down to him,” Goldsmith said, “but if Trump does show up, it’s just going to make it harder for them to rule for him.”
https://www.alternet.org/trump-tariffs-supreme-court-2674259628/

Stock futures climb as investors await Supreme Court showdown on Trump tariffs and shareholder vote on Musk’s $1 trillion pay package

Futures tied to the Dow Jones Industrial Average rose 107 points, or 0.22%. S&P 500 futures were up 0.28%, and Nasdaq futures added 0.30%. These gains would extend Friday’s rally.

The yield on the 10-year Treasury fell 1.8 basis points to 4.083%. Meanwhile, the U.S. dollar inched up 0.06% against the euro and 0.16% against the yen. Gold dipped 0.11% to $3,992 per ounce.

In commodity markets, U.S. oil futures rose 0.64% to $61.37 a barrel, while Brent crude climbed 0.62% to $65.17. The gains came as OPEC+ signaled it will pause its production increases next year.

Looking ahead, the Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on Wednesday in a case challenging former President Trump’s authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose so-called reciprocal tariffs related to the fentanyl trade. Lower courts have ruled against Trump, but some trade experts believe there is still a chance the high court could decide in his favor.

On Sunday, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent expressed optimism about the Supreme Court’s decision, citing China’s strict rare earths export restrictions that threatened various industries and critical technologies. “The president was able to push back using his IEEPA powers,” Bessent told Fox News Sunday. “If that’s not use of an emergency power at an emergency time, I don’t know what it is.”

In corporate news, Tesla shareholders will gather on Thursday for the company’s annual meeting to vote on Elon Musk’s $1 trillion compensation package. Chairwoman Robyn Denholm urged shareholders to support the deal, warning in a letter on Monday that the company risks losing significant value if the deal fails and Musk chooses to step down as CEO.

Denholm emphasized that the historic compensation package is needed to motivate Musk as Tesla pushes further into artificial intelligence, robotics, and autonomous driving. If approved, Musk will gradually receive more than 420 million Tesla shares, contingent upon meeting aggressive growth targets, including delivering 20 million Tesla vehicles and having 1 million robotaxis in commercial operation.

Musk himself told analysts during Tesla’s earnings call last month that the proposal is designed to ensure he cannot be sidelined. “It’s called compensation, but it’s not like I’m going to go spend the money,” he said. “It’s just, if we build this robot army, do I have at least a strong influence over that robot army, not current control, but a strong influence? That’s what it comes down to in a nutshell. I don’t feel comfortable wielding that robot army if I don’t have at least a strong influence.”

Meanwhile, elections in New York City, New Jersey, and Virginia could shift the political narrative in Washington, D.C., where lawmakers remain deadlocked over the government shutdown. The election outcomes could motivate one party to reach a deal sooner rather than later, paving the way for federal employees to be paid and benefits to resume.

Reopening the government would also restart the flow of vital economic data. Until then, only private-sector sources will be available, including the Institute for Supply Management’s manufacturing index on Monday, ADP’s monthly payroll report on Wednesday, and ISM’s services index later that same day.
https://fortune.com/2025/11/02/stock-market-today-dow-futures-trump-tariffs-supreme-court-elon-musk-pay-package-tesla-shareholder-vote/

Trump’s ‘nuclear’ demand not landing for Senate Republicans amid shutdown

Senate Republicans have long resisted the temptation of going nuclear on the filibuster. This move, which involves changing Senate rules to eliminate the filibuster, has been more commonly employed by Senate Democrats when they controlled the upper chamber.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trumps-nuclear-demand-not-landing-senate-republicans-amid-shutdown

King Trump! At Long Last, a Crown!

We here at The American Spectator have justly lampooned the No Kings crowd. They’re easy to poke fun at, given that their very name and message is, well, obviously incorrect.

Donald Trump has been called numerous things by the Left, most of which are at least subjective and debatable. For instance, one could argue in circles about how to best define the “democracy” that Trump is somehow unilaterally destroying. But a king? That’s pure nonsense from the get-go.
(RELATED: The Ridiculous No Kings Protest)

Donald Trump is, of course, not a monarch. Even if Donald Trump wanted to be king, he couldn’t. Gosh, Trump can’t even abolish the loathsome Department of Education. That’s because in our constitutional system of separation of powers and checks and balances, the legislative branch stops him.
(RELATED: Linda McMahon Body-Slams Woke Classrooms)

And yet, speaking of education, that hasn’t stopped the dimwits at the American Federation of Teachers from pushing the No Kings movement. The AFT’s website, the morning of the recent nationwide No Kings rallies, was filled with silly, incendiary language on “Why fascists fear teachers” and “No crowns, no thrones, no kings.”

Gadzooks, you would think that teachers would know that Trump not only isn’t a king but has neither a crown nor throne! The AFT ought to be educating kids in a proper understanding of what words like “monarch” and “fascist” actually mean.
(RELATED: The Spectacle Ep. 289: No Kings, Just Clowns: The Boomer Rebellion Against Reality)

Apparently, the ignorance that pervades American public education starts at the top. To his immense credit, Donald Trump has seized upon the spectacle to have a little fun. He has trolled the No Kings crowd, posting manipulated photos of himself wearing a crown, which no doubt had them howling even louder: “See! See! We said he wants to be king! There you go!”
(RELATED: The ‘No Kings’ Phonies)

But alas, amid our lampooning of the No Kings howlers, it looks like they’re having the last laugh. Well, not the last laugh, because they don’t laugh — they’re too angry. I should say, the No Kings howlers are having the last word. They’ve been suddenly vindicated.

That is because Donald Trump, ladies and gentlemen, has in fact received a crown. Yes, it is true. If you didn’t catch the news, Donald J. Trump received a crown during his current swing through Asia.

South Korean President Lee Jae Myung on Wednesday made Trump the first American president to receive South Korea’s highest honor, the Grand Order of Mugunghwa, replete with a replica of the golden Cheonmachong crown.

No doubt, Trump can’t spell, let alone pronounce, “Mugunghwa” or “Cheonmachong.” But what does that matter? Mugunghwa or cowabunga, Trump at long last got his crown!

Before I extend my congratulations to His Highness, let me add a few words of explication about South Korea, a country that I’ve lectured on for decades and alternately admire and find a little crazy. Not to rain on King Trump’s special parade.

South Korea is quite the political soap opera. The country’s leadership has been mired in scandal for decades, and especially throughout the last year. The current leader who crowned Trump, Lee Jae Myung, who is a member of the Democratic Party of Korea — yes, a Democrat — took power last June after the impeachment, expulsion, and arrest of the previous leader, Yoon Suk Yeol, a right-leaning populist and nationalist who was being dubbed the “South Korean Donald Trump.”
(RELATED: KPop Demon Hunters and South Korea’s Out of Control Lawfare)

The American Left characterizes Jan. 6, 2021, as an attempted coup by Donald Trump, an insurrection that left the nation’s capital teetering on the brink of near-martial law. But in fact, South Korea’s Yoon Suk Yeol was the real McCoy.

Last January (as noted ironically in a January 6 piece for The American Spectator by Doug Bandow), Yoon declared martial law and deployed troops to the legislature, the National Assembly. These were real troops, not a bunch of yahoos banging on the side of a building with sticks. This very unpopular action by Yoon triggered his impeachment and indictment.
(RELATED: South Korea’s President Commits Self-Immolation)

Yoon’s authoritarian tactics harkened back to South Korea’s days under military rule, with leaders like Park Chung-hee, who ruled the country from 1961 to 1979 before being assassinated. There had been several assassination attempts against Park. His wife was killed in one of them.

Their daughter was elected president decades later, but alas, she — Park Geun-hye — was driven out of office in 2017 and likewise put under arrest, given a 24-year prison sentence.

Even South Korea’s new president has faced drama and serious danger. An assassination attempt was made against him as well (in January 2024). And I assure you, this is a mere short list of South Korean high-ranking officials targeted over the past 50-plus years (including Nobel Peace Prize winner and heroic dissident Kim Dae-Jung).

South Korea is a wild place. No, it isn’t as crazy as the lunatic asylum run by the House of Kim up north — a communist-totalitarian monarchy — but at times it seems like an Asian Wild West.

So, South Korea knows an authoritarian when it sees one! This will make sense to the No Kings folks. They will tell you — actually, they will scream from the streets — that Donald Trump is an authoritarian.

South Korea’s leaders apparently know a king when they see one. Thus, they took the step of awarding Trump the crown that our homegrown No Kings movement had seen coming along.

The irony was not lost on the political scientists at the New York Times. America’s newspaper of record confirmed in a headline, “Trump Has Likened Himself to a King. South Korea gave Him a Crown.”

Indeed, New York Times. Spot on. Brilliant analysis.

And so, there you go! The likes of the American Federation of Teachers have shown themselves not to be the dunces we thought they were, but rather astute political prognosticators. I guess they, too, know a monarch when they see one. Impressive, AFT. Who would’ve thunk it?

The No Kings movement has proved astutely prophetic. Here’s hoping that Trump will start wearing his crown soon. I suggest The Donald don the crown for his next State of the Union address. I think the liberals would love that.

Pop Music Isn’t as Popular
Happy Indigenous Peoples’ Day!
https://spectator.org/king-trump-at-long-last-a-crown/

‘What Happens In Nevada’: Democrats Can’t Stop Ranting About Trump’s Nuclear Weapons Move While Shutdown Rages

As the government shutdown surges toward becoming the longest in U.S. history, Senate Democrats are condemning President Donald Trump’s Wednesday evening declaration that his administration will resume nuclear weapons testing.

Trump posted on Truth Social on Wednesday that he had “instructed the Department of War to start testing our Nuclear Weapons on an equal basis,” arguing that Russia and China were conducting their own tests and that America must match their efforts. The president stated that the U.S. already possesses the world’s largest nuclear arsenal, noting that this, and the modernization of the weapons, had occurred during his first term.

Democratic Nevada Sen. Jacky Rosen issued an emotional rebuke, arguing that nuclear testing could possibly bring radioactive “contamination” beyond the desert.

“Trump’s going to start nuclear testing. Explosive nuclear testing. What happens in Nevada ain’t gonna’ stay there,” Rosen told reporters on Thursday after criticizing Senate Majority Leader John Thune. “The ground, the air, the water, all across this country, places like Utah, Nebraska, Idaho, keep going. Because the rain falls everywhere, the wind blows everywhere. And that contamination won’t stay isolated.”

Democratic Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly, a former astronaut and Navy pilot, said the U.S. has no need to test its nuclear weapons, and claimed the idea “benefits the Chinese.”

“We can model this stuff; we have enough data from hundreds, maybe up to a thousand tests,” Kelly told reporters. “This benefits the Chinese.”

—

*RELATED: [Trump Orders Department Of War To Restart Nuclear Weapons Tests]*

—

*Note: This article republished from The Daily Caller News Foundation. For any questions about their guidelines or partnering opportunities, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.*
https://dailycaller.com/2025/10/30/democrats-trump-nuclear-testing-jacky-rosen-mark-kelly-richard-blumenthal/

China just purchased its first U.S. soybeans from this year’s harvest before Trump and Xi meet at economic summit

The firm plays a key role in the global supply and trade of grains, oils, and food products. Its core trading arm, COFCO International, reported $38.5 billion in revenue last year, handling 108.4 million metric tons of agricultural crops and commodities.

Recently, COFCO placed a purchase order for 180,000 metric tons of U.S. soybeans, scheduled for shipment in December and January. Reuters first reported the order on Tuesday, citing two oilseed traders. This marks China’s first purchase of U.S. soybeans in several months. COFCO did not immediately respond to Fortune’s request for comment.

Experts familiar with the transaction told Reuters that the purchase volume was relatively small, amounting to just three cargoes or shiploads of soybeans. They also noted that demand for U.S. soybeans is not expected to increase significantly in the near future, following recent large purchases from South America.

China accounts for about 60% of the world’s soybean imports, and in 2024, it made up 51% of U.S. soybean exports. However, trade tensions have created a significant divide between the U.S.—the world’s second-largest soybean producer—and China. The rift has been so pronounced that China had not previously placed any orders for the U.S. soybean growers’ autumn harvests.

This situation has raised concerns among farmers in rural America, who warn of an impending economic crisis fueled by losing their top export market, falling crop prices, and high production costs.

On a hopeful note, former President Trump and China’s president are scheduled to meet for talks regarding trade and tariffs during the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Summit in Busan, South Korea, on Thursday. These planned discussions come after Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent hinted at a de-escalation in the trade war under a deal framework he negotiated.

In a recent interview aired on Sunday, Bessent addressed the 100% tariff threat, which followed China’s announcement of strict export controls. These include a ban on rare earth exports for foreign military use and a requirement for foreign entities to obtain Chinese government approval for products containing even trace amounts of Chinese-sourced rare earths. Rare earth elements are crucial for the U.S. in military applications and AI development.

“So, I would expect that the threat of the 100% tariffs has gone away, as has the threat of the immediate imposition of the Chinese initiating a worldwide export control regime,” Bessent said.

While declining to give specific details about the trade agreement to CBS, Bessent expressed optimism for U.S. soybean farmers, saying they will be “extremely happy with this deal for this year and for the coming years.” He added, “I believe that we have brought the market back into equilibrium, and I believe that the Chinese will be making substantial purchases again.”

Babak Hafezi, adjunct professor of international business at American University, told Fortune that negotiations between China and the U.S. have been marked by “leverage diplomacy.”

“The Chinese understood that they could not renegotiate unless they had leverage, and they used rare-earth minerals as a key lever, bringing the U.S. to the table,” Hafezi explained.

Following China’s move in mid-October, negotiations accelerated, including the U.S. requirement to purchase soybeans—an order COFCO had not placed this year, he added.

“This is a quid pro quo in the negotiation process and helps us stabilize relations with China more quickly,” Hafezi concluded.
https://fortune.com/2025/10/30/china-buys-us-soybeans-trump-xi-summit-deal-trade-tariffs/

Trump warns New Jersey faces hotbed of crime, skyrocketing energy prices if Mikie Sherrill elected

President Trump issued a strong warning to New Jersey voters early Monday, cautioning that Democratic gubernatorial candidate Rep. Mikie Sherrill would transform the Garden State into a hotspot of crime, soaring energy prices—and “HEARTACHE!”

In an early morning post on Truth Social, the former president criticized both Sherrill and Virginia’s Democratic gubernatorial candidate, Abigail Spanberger, urging voters to swing right this election season.

“Why would anyone vote for New Jersey and Virginia gubernatorial candidates, Mikie Sherrill and Abigail Spanberger, when they want transgender for everybody, men playing in women’s sports, high crime, and the most expensive energy prices almost anywhere in the world?” Trump questioned.

He continued, “VOTE REPUBLICAN for massive energy cost reductions, large-scale tax cuts, and basic common sense!”

Highlighting his administration’s energy policies, Trump claimed, “Under President Trump, ME, gasoline will come down to approximately $2 a gallon, very soon! With the Democrats, you’ll be paying $4, $5, and $6 a gallon, and your electric and other energy costs will, likewise, SOAR.”

The former commander-in-chief emphasized that voters in New Jersey and beyond would enjoy “a great and very affordable life” if Republican candidates prevail in the upcoming election.

“All you’ll get from voting Democrat is unrelentingly high crime, energy prices through the roof, men playing in women’s sports, and HEARTACHE!” he added.

This latest salvo follows prior attacks by Trump against Sherrill throughout her campaign. Over the weekend, as early in-person voting began in New Jersey, he labeled her a “corrupt radical left Democrat,” declaring, “She’ll be a travesty as the governor of New Jersey.”

Despite Trump’s criticisms, Sherrill currently holds a five-point lead over Republican gubernatorial candidate Jack Ciattarelli, standing at 50% to 45% in the latest Rutgers-Eagleton poll of likely voters.
https://nypost.com/2025/10/27/us-news/trump-warns-new-jersey-faces-hotbed-of-crime-skyrocketing-energy-prices-if-mikie-sherrill-elected/

No kings … including Jesus?

Did you see that a lot of people don’t want Donald Trump to be the king of America? On October 18th, there were numerous “No Kings” rallies across the country, protesting what demonstrators describe as authoritarian actions by President Trump. They claim he acts more like a king than a president.

One protester in San Francisco held a sign that read, “Hey Trump, nobody paid us to be here. We all hate you for free.” Nice. You can find the Babylon Bee’s satirical list of accomplishments by people like those at the No Kings demonstrations [here](#).

The vast majority of protesters were Democrats and leftists (and yes, there is a distinction between the two). Naturally, there were jabs from the right about the rallies, with some calling it “Democrat Sulk Day.” Supporters of the “No Kings” rallies denied this characterization and said they simply oppose the despotic actions of any president who crosses the line of democracy.

But am I the only one calling baloney on that? If the situation were reversed, and a leftist president was pushing their niche agenda onto the nation, what do you want to bet most of these folks would have stayed home?

The good news is that the “No Kings” rallies were mainly peaceful—a refreshing change for that side of the political fence. Usually, when the Left doesn’t get its way, it follows in the footsteps of those in 1780-90s France, who birthed leftist philosophy.

Wall Street Journal writer Jason Willick noted a few years back:

> “The French Revolution, in its moderate phase before 1792, drew on America’s ideals in seeking to overthrow the monarchy. The differences, however, proved fundamental. Whereas the Americans began with the individual as the primary unit of moral and political value, [France] wanted to create a collective will. But in order to create a collective will, you have to destroy all those wills that are counter to your vision of the general will. That’s why America’s revolution ended with constitutional government and France’s in terror and tyranny.”

The destruction of “those wills that are counter to your vision of general will” has been carried out countless times, not only during the past five or so years but throughout history. To be fair, it has been done on both sides of the political divide.

This dynamic echoes what Frank Herbert wrote in *Children of Dune*:

> “When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles.”

This robbing of freedom and voice has often happened more through mob mentality and political puppeteering than by a single individual. It aligns closely with the spirit of the French Revolution and its disastrous outcomes.

Such tactics have been called out even by unlikely sources, like the rock band Black Sabbath in their song **The Mob Rules**:

> Close the city and tell the people that something’s coming to call
> Death and darkness are rushing forward to
> Take a bite from the wall
> You’ve nothing to say, they’re breaking away
> If you listen to fools, the mob rules
> The mob rules

Mobs that dominate cultural thought demonstrate why, as Winston Churchill famously said, democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others. However, he and the “No Kings” protesters are wrong when it comes to the best form of government.

The best government, absolutely, is a monarchy—but with one very important requirement: it must have the right monarch. And I know of only One who qualifies.

The problem is that any monarch represents ultimate authority—something that clashes with the insubordinate spirit we’re all born with.

Looking at the “No Kings” protests and reading many of their comments reminded me of Albert Camus’ famous quote: “I rebel, therefore we exist.”

The Bible, however, tells us in Romans 13:1-2:

> “There is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God.”

This means the spirit of authority-resistance running through the “No Kings” rallies and others like them is aimed every bit as much upward as outward, even if the protesters are unaware of it.

Some have declared that explicitly. The atheist Christopher Hitchens expressed disgust at the notion that we are the property of any supernatural authority:

> “Once you assume a creator and a plan, it makes us objects in a cruel experiment. And over us, to supervise this, is installed a celestial dictatorship, a kind of divine North Korea.”

Thomas Paine speaks for many today with his stance on authority and human worship when he wrote:

> “My own mind is my own church.”

But no matter what Paine’s or anyone else’s mind tells them, the Bible declares everywhere that God is King overall.

Scripture says:

– “The Lord is King forever and ever” (Psalm 10:16)
– “The Lord is enthroned as King forever” (Psalm 29:10)
– And of Jesus, who is coming back as King over all creation: “He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords” (1 Timothy 6:15)

The rebellious spirit of our age won’t accept any king, including Jesus. Just like He spoke about in the parable of the nobleman:

> “But his citizens hated him and sent a delegation after him, saying, ‘We do not want this man to reign over us’” (Luke 19:14).

It’s both funny and tragic how fickle crowds quickly change their tune. One minute, they were “intending to come and take Him by force to make Him king” (John 6:15), and not long afterward, they were screaming, “We have no king but Caesar” (John 19:15).

Scripture also reveals that the overt kind of rejection Christ experienced in His first coming will happen again at His second appearing. Psalm 2 describes that scene:

> “Why are the nations in an uproar and the peoples devising a vain thing? The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers take counsel together against the LORD and against His Anointed, saying, ‘Let us tear their fetters apart and cast away their cords from us!’” (Psalm 2:1-3)

But they’ve got it all wrong. Jesus isn’t a king who takes and enslaves; He’s one who gives (literally everything) and sets us free. No monarch has ever done that, am I right?

So, if you’re a “No Kings” rally participant, relax and take heart. Trump will never be king. But Jesus is—and it’s best you confess Him as Lord now rather than end up as His footstool someday (Psalm 110:1).
https://www.christianpost.com/voices/no-kings-including-jesus.html