Category: The Conversation – USA

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Ryan D. Griffiths, Professor of Political Science, Syracuse University

The United States government has been shut down for nearly a month, yet another indication that the political system has become deeply dysfunctional.

President Donald Trump has blamed the Democrats and called their negotiating strategy a “kamikaze attack.” Democrats are keen to stand their ground, hoping that the fallout is worse for Republicans. While each side casts blame on the other, it is Americans who suffer.

But the shutdown is just another episode in a series of polarization-fueled events that are leading Americans to lose faith in their government. Every nation has it limits, and one wonders how much America can take before the pressure to divide into separate countries becomes too great.

Consider the aftermath of the assassination of Charlie Kirk, which raised the specter of polarization-fueled conflict in America. Mentions of “civil war” surged online, fears grew over rising political violence, and the Trump administration vowed to crack down on left-leaning groups.

These are merely the latest examples of the mounting pressure on the American political system. A recent New York Times/Siena poll found that 64% of Americans think the country is too politically divided to solve the nation’s problems. The same poll showed that only 42% of Americans held that position in 2020.

In other words, nearly two-thirds of Americans think the system is broken, and the number is growing fast.

Calls for a national divorce

It should come as no surprise, then, that some are calling for radical solutions like a national divorce.

On Sept. 15, 2025, five days after Kirk’s killing, Georgia Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene tweeted that America needs “a peaceful national divorce. Our country is too far gone and too far divided, and it’s no longer safe for any of us.”

National divorce is the term used to describe the splitting of America into two parts: a red America and a blue America. Secessionist movements like Yes California and Red-State Secession have for over a decade been calling for a national divorce along political lines. And a 2023 Axios poll found that as many as 20% of Americans see national divorce as a solution to political polarization.

As a political scientist who studies secessionist conflict, I’ve found that the national divorce argument is commonly used as an analogy with marital divorce. Just as two spouses may be extremely ill-suited for one another, and far better off if they separated, the same can be said of red and blue America. They no longer see eye to eye on a range of issues, from reproductive rights to the environment and gun control.

If they seceded from one another and formed their own countries, the argument goes, then they could establish policies that would ensure the future they wanted.

But as I show in my new book, there is no way to disentangle red and blue America without tremendous violence. Additionally, a large and increasingly ignored percentage of Americans hold moderate views.

There is no doubt that polarization in America is a problem that is getting worse, but a national divorce is simply not the solution.

And yet America’s leaders continue to lead their country toward that outcome. The deployment of National Guard troops to blue cities, the polarization-enhancing consequences of competitive gerrymandering in states like Texas and California, and the spectacle of government shutdown are eroding the public trust. By continuing with policies that amplify polarization and erode the public trust, America’s leaders are fueling the calls for a national divorce.

How much can the country take?

The trend toward heightened polarization in America is not irreversible, but there are limits to how much the country can take before secession becomes a serious project. Some of the limits can be identified in advance.

First, it’s important that the country’s leaders take the pulse of America. If 20% of Americans favored national divorce in early 2023, what is the percentage now? That kind of sentiment can increase surprisingly fast.

Between 2006 and 2014, for example, Catalonian support for independence from Spain increased from 14% to 45%. If something like 50% of Americans concluded that America didn’t work and was better off broken up into smaller parts, then the country could tip rapidly into a secessionist crisis.

Second, high levels of secessionist support make the country vulnerable to trigger events that convince Americans that secession is the answer. The polarization-inspired assassination of prominent leaders can lead to a cycle of recrimination. Upcoming elections are also a concern. If they are closely contested and the losing side is unwilling to admit defeat, then the bedrock of democracy is broken. Both triggers can accelerate polarization and the turn to secessionism.

A third threshold moment is when a prominent leader decides to champion the cause of a national divorce.

Should someone like California Gov. Gavin Newsom, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott or the sore loser of a 2028 election conclude that the system is rigged, and secession is the only solution, then the entire project gains legitimacy.

It was that kind of elite conversion to the secessionist cause that energized the movement in places like Scotland and Catalonia.

The U.S. is a robust country and the longest-running democracy in the world. Americans have more in common than they realize, and the country can be a positive force in the world.

But without decisive action by political leaders to reduce the polarization that threatens to tear the country apart, the United States is at risk of turning from one country into two.

Ryan D. Griffiths receives funding from the National Science Foundation.

– ref. Polarizing political events are leading Americans to increasingly call for a national divorce – https://theconversation.com/polarizing-political-events-are-leading-americans-to-increasingly-call-for-a-national-divorce-267812

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Richie Zweigenhaft, Emeritus Professor of Psychology, Guilford College

For years, Donald Trump’s distinctive, large and bold signature has captured the public’s attention. Not only did it recently come to light that his signature appeared in a book that Jeffrey Epstein received for his 50th birthday, but it fits neatly alongside Trump’s long history of brash self-adulation. “I love my signature, I really do,” he said in a Sept. 30, 2025, speech to military leaders. “Everyone loves my signature.”

His signature also happens to be of particular interest to me, given my decades-long fascination with, and occasional academic research on, the connection between signature size and personal attributes.

A long-time social psychologist who has studied America’s elite, I made an unintentional empirical discovery as an undergraduate more than 50 years ago. The link that I found then – and that numerous studies have since echoed – is that signature size is related to status and one’s sense of self.

Signature size and self-esteem

Back in 1967, during my senior year of college, I was a work-study student in Wesleyan University’s psychology library. My task, four nights a week, was to check out books and to reshelve books that had been returned.

When students or faculty took books out, they were asked to sign their names on an orange, unlined card found in each book.

At some point, I noticed a pattern: When faculty signed the books out, they used a lot of space to sign their names. When students checked them out, they used very little space, leaving a lot of space for future readers.

So I decided to study my observation systematically.

I gathered at least 10 signatures for each faculty member and comparison samples of student signatures with the same number of letters in their names. After measuring by multiplying the height versus the width of the amount of space used, I found that eight of the nine faculty members used significantly more space to sign their names.

In order to test for age as well as status, I did another study in which I compared the signatures of blue-collar workers such as custodians and groundskeepers who worked at the school with a sample of professors and a sample of students – again matched for the number of letters, this time on blank 3-by-5-inch cards. The blue-collar workers used more space than the students but less than the faculty. I concluded that age was at play, but so was status.

When I told psychologist Karl Scheibe, my favorite teacher, about my findings, he said I could measure the signatures in his books, which he had been signing for more than a decade since his freshman year in college.

As can be seen in the graph, his book signatures mostly got bigger. They took a major leap in size from his junior year to his senior year, dipped a bit when he entered graduate school and then increased in size as he completed his Ph.D. and joined the Wesleyan faculty.

I did a few more studies, and published a few articles, concluding that signature size was related to self-esteem and a measure of what I termed “status awareness.” I found that the pattern held in a number of different environments, including in Iran – where people write from right to left.

The narcissism connection

Although my subsequent research included a book about the CEOs of Fortune 500 companies, it never crossed my mind to look at the signatures of these CEOs.

However, it did cross the minds of some researchers, 40 years later. In May 2013, I received a call from the editor of the Harvard Business Review because of the work I had done on signature size. They planned to run an interview with Nick Seybert, an associate professor of accounting at the University of Maryland, about the potential link between signature size and narcissism in CEOs.

While Seybert told me his research had not found direct evidence for a positive relationship between the two, the possibility of the connection he inferred nonetheless intrigued me.

So I decided to test this using a sample of my students. I asked them to sign a blank 3-by-5 card as if they were writing a check, and then I gave them a widely used 16-item narcissism scale.

Lo and behold, Seybert was right to deduce a link: There was a significant positive correlation between signature size and narcissism. Although my sample size was small, the link subsequently led Seybert to test two different samples of his students. And he found the same significant, positive correlation.

Others soon began to use signature size to assess narcissism in CEOs. By 2020, growing interest in the topic saw the Journal of Management publish an article that included signature size as one of five ways to measure narcissism in CEOs.

A growing field

Now, almost six years later, researchers have used signature size to explore narcissism in CEOs and other senior corporate positions such as chief financial officers. The link has been found not only in the U.S. but in countries including the United Kingdom, Germany, Uruguay, Iran, South Africa and China.

In addition, some researchers have studied the effect of larger versus smaller signatures on the viewers. For example, in a recent article in the Journal of Philanthropy, Canadian researchers reported on three studies that systematically varied the signature size of someone soliciting funds in order to see whether it affected the size of donations. It did. In one of their studies, they found that increasing the size of the sender’s signature generated more than twice as much revenue.

The surprising resurgence of research using signature size to assess narcissism leads me to a few conclusions.

For one, signature size as a measure of certain aspects of personality has turned out to be much more robust than I imagined as an observant undergraduate working in a college library back in 1967.

Indeed, signature size is not only an indicator of status and self-esteem, as I once concluded. It is also, as recent studies suggest, an indicator of narcissistic tendencies – the kind that many argue are exhibited by Trump’s big, bold signature.

Where this research is taken next is anyone’s guess, least of all for the person who noticed something intriguing about signature size so many years ago.

Richie Zweigenhaft does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Signature size and narcissism − a psychologist explains a long-ago discovery that helped establish the link – https://theconversation.com/signature-size-and-narcissism-a-psychologist-explains-a-long-ago-discovery-that-helped-establish-the-link-267572

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Joshua Anbar, Clinical Assistant Professor in Healthcare Administration and Policy, Arizona State University

I can say from personal experience that being diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder can feel very isolating. Increasingly, however, it’s not unusual.

In the U.S., 1 in 31 children are diagnosed with autism each year by age 8, according to the latest data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That number, released in April 2025, is up from 1 in 36 in 2023.

These statistics have been widely characterized as concerning. But I would like to offer a different perspective.

I am a researcher studying how young people with autism transition to adulthood. I also work on the Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network, which was established by the CDC two decades ago to determine the prevalence of autism in the U.S. and which produced the 2025 report.

Additionally, this topic is deeply personal to me, since I am diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome, now known as autism spectrum disorder.

While autism does present challenges, my professional and personal experiences have taught me that creating space for autistic people’s perspectives affords opportunities for making the world a more vibrant place.

A rare condition?

Autism spectrum disorder is a developmental condition that manifests differently from person to person but commonly affects how a person communicates, socializes and interacts with the world.

In the 1990s, researchers and clinicians estimated that autism was a relatively rare condition, affecting an estimated 1 in 500 children. But the real-world experiences of families and clinicians suggested that it was more common.

In a landmark study published in 1998, researchers examined autism prevalence in a community in New Jersey to determine a more realistic estimate in the U.S. population. They found that approximately 1 in 150 children had autism – making it more than three times more common than previously believed.

Then, in 2000, the newly formed Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network, which set out to study autism among 8-year-olds, looked across a much broader population and confirmed the higher prevalence.

A growing recognition

Since then, the number of children recognized as having autism by a doctor or an education specialist has continued to rise. The 2025 report shows that autism occurs in all types of communities. Autism affects children regardless of race, ethnicity or income level.

Autism prevalence does vary by location, though. It is highest in California, where it is recognized in around 1 in 19 children, and lowest in Texas, where the prevalence ranges from around 1 in 103 to 1 in 51 children. In Arizona, where I live and work, the prevalence is around 1 in 32, which is very close to the CDC’s overall nationwide estimate.

Researchers believe that this wide geographic variability in autism prevalence reflects complex interactions between community awareness and acceptance, the availability of clinical and education services in schools and communities that serve people with autism, broader culture acceptance of mental health challenges, and other societal factors.

The number of autism diagnoses also varies by gender. One well-known feature of autism is that it affects boys more often than girls. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, four boys for every one girl was diagnosed with autism. This disparity persisted for many years. But now, it seems to be shrinking: In the May 2025 data, the ratio for boys versus girls is 3.4 to 1.

This shift reflects the growing understanding that autism looks different in girls than in boys, which in turn allows clinicians to accurately identify it in girls in larger numbers.

From recognition to acceptance

Research shows, however, that this increase in autism diagnoses is not something to fear.

While some children diagnosed with autism are profoundly affected and require significant support, many others successfully engage in everyday activities like school, sports and work. One 2022 study found that a majority of children reported as having autism by their parents expect to attend college. This suggests that many people diagnosed with autism feel they are capable of living full and productive lives.

Of course, understanding the patterns of autism prevalence does not explain why it occurs in the first place. Research suggests that genes are a major cause of autism. But many things have changed over the past several decades since researchers and clinicians began tracking autism occurrence. For example, the criteria clinicians use to diagnose autism have changed over time to become less restrictive.

Today, a wider variety of symptoms are included in the diagnostic definition of autism spectrum disorder than when autism was first introduced as a mental health condition in 1980.

Another change is that autism is much more widely accepted in society than it was just a decade ago. For example, autistic characters are often portrayed in media as protagonists that the audience is cheering for. This growing recognition and acceptance is associated with an increase in self-diagnosis of autism.

Building richer communities

While autistic people tend to have some unique challenges, including repetitive behaviors, restricted interests and social communication difficulties, they also have particular strengths, such as creative, out-of-the-box thinking. For me, this includes seeing connections that others miss.

Autistic people report that their unique perspective offers specific benefits in their workplaces and careers. Many go on to make important contributions to their communities and to shape society as a whole.

For example, Temple Grandin, an outspoken author and speaker on autism and a professor of animal science at Colorado State University, has credited her autism with influencing her research on animal handling and animal behaviors. Comedian Dan Aykroyd, who was an original cast member and host of “Saturday Night Live”, credits his diagnosis of Asperger’s syndrome and fixation on ghosts for developing the movie “Ghostbusters”.

A more complete picture of autism that includes strengths as well as challenges creates a starting point for building communities that are inclusive and accepting of autistic people. From there, policymakers, employers and others can start to create dynamic and vibrant places where people with autism can successfully live, work and play alongside their nonautistic peers.

And, given that children with autism will become adults with autism, it allows experts like me to identify needs and design policies that help communities support autistic people at different stages of their life.

For example, the growing number of students with developmental challenges raises demands on special education services. This means state and local education systems may need to develop and implement specialized training programs for educators to better support autistic students in the classroom.

Autistic children who need accommodations in school may also need support to succeed in adulthood. This can range from having physicians who gear their clinical practices to better listen to autistic patients to work-from-home and other accommodations that encourage engagement with traditional employment.

Broader frameworks such as laws and policies can also help attune workplaces and other environments to the needs of people with autism. For example, independent living programs and programs that train, hire and retain workers with disabilities can ensure the economic success of people with autism.

Cities can also become autism certified, a process that brings together community stakeholders in health care, education, local government, hospitality and leisure to better serve those with autism. This includes training on how to interact with people who have cognitive differences as well as creating sensory-friendly environments. The city that I live in – Mesa, Arizona – was the first to gain such certification in 2019, and a handful of other cities have followed suit.

As I see it, rather than a cause for fear, the growing recognition of autism is an invitation to build a world where every way of thinking and being has a chance to thrive.

Joshua Anbar receives funding from the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention. He is member of the Self-Advocate Advisory Board at the Southwest Autism Research and Resource Center (SARRC), where he also completed his postdoc work.

– ref. How autism rates are rising – and why that could lead to more inclusive communities – https://theconversation.com/how-autism-rates-are-rising-and-why-that-could-lead-to-more-inclusive-communities-257811

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Iain Boyd, Director of the Center for National Security Initiatives and Professor of Aerospace Engineering Sciences, University of Colorado Boulder

Russian President Vladimir Putin, dressed in a military uniform, announced on Oct. 26, 2025, that Russia had successfully tested a nuclear-powered missile. If true, such a weapon could provide Russia with a unique military capability that also has broader political implications.

The missile, called Burevestnik, was reportedly successfully tested over the Arctic Ocean after years of development and several earlier initial test flights, one of which resulted in the deaths of five nuclear scientists.

I am an engineer who studies defense systems. Here is how these weapons function, the advantages they present over conventional missile systems, and their potential to disrupt global strategic stability.

Conventionally powered missiles

Missiles have been used by militaries around the world for centuries and come in a broad array of designs that are characterized by their mission, range and velocity. They are used to damage and destroy a wide variety of targets, including ground installations such as bases, command centers and deeply buried infrastructure; ships; aircraft; and potentially spacecraft. These weapons are operated from the ground by the army, from the sea by navy ships, and from the air by fighters and bombers.

Missiles can be tactical, with relatively short ranges of less than 500 miles, or strategic, with long ranges of thousands of miles. Missiles fall into three general categories: ballistic, cruise and hypersonic.

Ballistic missiles are launched on rockets. After the rocket burns out, the missile flies along a predictable arc that takes it out of the atmosphere into space and then back into the atmosphere toward its target.

Cruise missiles have an additional engine that is ignited after the rocket burns out, allowing the missile to fly programmed routes, typically at low altitudes. These engines are powered by a mixture of chemicals or a solid fuel.

Hypersonic missiles fly faster than the speed of sound, but not as fast as intercontinental ballistic missiles, or ICBMs. They are launched on smaller rockets that keep them within the upper reaches of the atmosphere. A hypersonic glide vehicle is boosted to high altitude and then glides to its target, maneuvering along the way. A hypersonic cruise missile is boosted to hypersonic speed and then uses an air-breathing engine called a scramjet to sustain that speed.

How nuclear-powered missiles work

Nuclear-powered missiles are a type of cruise missile. The designs are typically a form of scramjet. A thermal nuclear system uses fission of nuclear fuel to add energy to an airstream that is then accelerated through a nozzle to generate thrust. In this way, fission of nuclear material replaces chemical combustion of traditional cruise missile engines.

The energy density – the amount of energy released per unit mass of fuel – available from nuclear fission is millions of times larger than that released by chemical propellants. This feature means that a relatively small amount of fissionable propellant can be used to power a missile for much longer periods of time than chemical propellants can.

The United States explored developing a nuclear-powered missile in the 1960s. The effort, Project Pluto, was abandoned due to the rapid progress made at the same time on ICBMs, as well as concerns over environmental contamination associated with nuclear systems.

Advantages of nuclear-powered flight

The key advantage of nuclear-powered missiles is the extra energy, which allows them to fly farther, longer, faster and lower in the atmosphere, while executing a wide array of maneuvers. For these reasons, they pose a significant challenge to the best missile defense systems.

The Russian military claims that the Burevestnik missile flew 8,700 miles at low altitude over a 15-hour period. For comparison, an airline flight from San Francisco to Boston covers 2,700 miles in six hours. While the Burevestnik vehicle is not flying particularly fast for a missile, it is likely maneuverable, which makes it difficult to defend against.

Challenges to using nuclear power

The huge amount of energy released by fission has been the key technical challenge for developing these missiles. The high levels of energy require materials that can withstand temperatures up to several thousand degrees Fahrenheit to prevent the missile from destroying itself.

In terms of safety, nuclear technology has found very limited application in space due to concerns over radiation contamination if something goes wrong, such as a failed launch. The same concerns apply to a nuclear-powered munition.

In addition, such systems may need to remain safe in storage for many years prior to use. An attack by an enemy on a weapons storage facility that contains nuclear-powered weapons could lead to a massive radiation leak.

Russia’s Burevestnik and global stability

The new Russian Burevestnik missile has been under development for over 20 years. While few technical details are known, Russian officials claim that it can maneuver to bypass antimissile and air defense systems.

Nuclear weapons were the basis for mutual deterrence between the Soviet Union and the United States during the Cold War. Both parties understood that a first strike by one side would be matched by an equally destructive counterstrike by the other. The fear of total annihilation maintained a peaceful balance.

Several developments threaten the current balance of power: better missile defense systems such as the U.S.’s planned Golden Dome and advances in highly maneuverable missiles. Missile defense systems have the potential to block a nuclear strike, and low-altitude maneuverable missiles have the potential to arrive without warning.

So, while much of the reaction to Russia’s announcement of its new nuclear-powered missile has focused on the challenges of defending against it, the more important concern may be its potential to completely disrupt global strategic stability.

Iain Boyd receives funding from the U.S. Department of Defense.

– ref. Nuclear-powered missiles: An aerospace engineer explains how they work – and what Russia’s claimed test means for global strategic stability – https://theconversation.com/nuclear-powered-missiles-an-aerospace-engineer-explains-how-they-work-and-what-russias-claimed-test-means-for-global-strategic-stability-268476

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Jason Reed, Associate Teaching Professor of Finance, University of Notre Dame

When it comes to setting monetary policy for the world’s largest economy, what data drives decision-making?

In ordinary times, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell and voting members of the Federal Open Market Committee, which usually meets eight times a year, have a wealth of information at their disposal, including key statistics such as monthly employment and extensive inflation data.

But with the federal shutdown that began Oct. 1, 2025, grinding on, government offices that publish such information are shuttered and data has been curtailed. As a result, Powell and his Fed colleagues might have considered the price of gas or changes in the cost of coffee to arrive at their decision to cut interest rates a quarter point at their latest monetary policy meeting, which ended Oct. 29, 2025.

The Federal Reserve’s mandate is to implement monetary policy that stabilizes prices and promotes full employment, but there is a delicate balance to strike. Not only do Powell and the Fed have to weigh domestic inflation, jobs and spending, but they must also respond to changes in President Donald Trump’s global tariff policy.

As an economist and finance professor at the University of Notre Dame, I know the Fed has a tough job of guiding the economy under even the most ideal circumstances. Now, imagine creating policy partially blindfolded, without access to key economic data.

But, fortunately, the Fed’s not flying blind – it still has a wide range of private, internal and public data to help it read the pulse of the U.S. economy.

Key data is MIA

The Fed is data-dependent, as Powell likes to remind markets. But the cancellation of reports on employment, job openings and turnover, retail sales and gross domestic product, along with a delay in the September consumer price information, will force the central bank to lean harder on private data to nail down the appropriate path for monetary policy.

Torsten Slok, chief economist for the Apollo asset management firm, recently released his set of “alternative data,” capturing information from a wide range of sources. This includes ISM PMI reports, which measure economic activity in the manufacturing and services sectors, and Bloomberg’s robust data on consumer spending habits.

“Generally, the private data, the alternative data that we look at is better used as a supplement for the underlying governmental data, which is the gold standard,” Powell said in mid-October. “It won’t be as effective as the main course as it would have been as a supplement.”

But at this crucial juncture, the Fed has also abruptly lost one important source of private data. Payroll processor ADP had previously shared private sector payroll information with the central bank, which considered it alongside government employment figures. Now, ADP has suspended the relationship, and Powell has reportedly asked the company to quickly reverse its decision.

Internal research

Fortunately for the Fed, it has its own sources for reliable information.

Even when government agencies are working and producing economic reports, the Federal Reserve utilizes internal research and its nationwide network of contacts to supplement data from the U.S. Census Bureau, the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

Since the Fed is self-funded, the government shutdown didn’t stop it from publishing its Beige Book, which comes out eight times a year and provides insight into how various aspects of the economy are performing.

Its Oct. 15 report found that consumer spending had inched down, with lower- and middle-income households facing “rising prices and elevated economic uncertainty.” Manufacturing was also hit by challenges linked to higher tariffs.

Leading indicators

And though no data is being released on the unemployment rate, historical data shows that consumer sentiment can act as a leading indicator for joblessness in the U.S.

According to the most recent consumer confidence reports, Americans are significantly more worried about their jobs over the next six months, as compared to this time last year, and expect fewer employment opportunities during that period. This suggests the Fed will likely see an uptick in the unemployment rate, once the data resumes publishing.

And if you did notice an increase in the price of your morning coffee, you’re not mistaken – both private and market-based data suggest inflation is a pressing concern, with expectations that price increases will remain at about the 2% target set by the Fed.

It’s clear that there is no risk-free path for policy, and a wrong move by the Fed could stoke inflation or even send the U.S. economy spiraling into a recession.

Uncertain path ahead

At the Fed’s September monetary policy meeting, members voted to cut benchmark interest rates by 25 basis points, while one member advocated for a 50-point cut.

It was the first interest rate cut since December – one that Trump had been loudly demanding to help spur the U.S. economy and lower the cost of government debt. Following the Oct. 29 interest rate cut, markets expect the FOMC to reduce rates by another quarter of a percentage point in December. That would lower rates to a range of 3.5%-3.75%, from 3.75%-4% currently, giving the labor market a much-needed boost.

After that, the near-certainty ends, as it’s anyone’s guess where interest rates will go from there. At quarterly meetings, members of the Federal Open Market Committee give projections of where they think the Fed’s benchmark interest rate will go over the next three years and beyond to provide forward guidance to financial markets and other observers.

The median projection from the September meeting suggests the benchmark rate will end 2026 a little lower than where it began, at 3.4%, and decline to 3.1% by the end of 2027. With inflation accelerating, Fed officials will continue to weigh the weakening labor market against the threat of inflation from tariffs, immigration reform and their own lower interest rates – not to mention the ongoing impact of the government shutdown.

Unfortunately, I believe these risks will be difficult to mitigate with just Fed intervention, even with perfect foresight into the economy, and will need help from government immigration, tax and spending policy to put the economy on the right path.

This article was updated with details of the October FOMC meeting.

Jason Reed does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Fed lowers interest rates as it struggles to assess state of US economy without key government data – https://theconversation.com/fed-lowers-interest-rates-as-it-struggles-to-assess-state-of-us-economy-without-key-government-data-267204

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Robert Applebaum, Senior Research Scholar, Scripps Gerontology Center, Miami University

Significant Figures is a series from The Conversation in which scholars explain an important number in the news.

---

---

When the Affordable Care Act, also known as the ACA or Obamacare, was enacted in 2010, lawmakers hoped it would help reduce the number of uninsured Americans. That year, an estimated 48.2 million people – about 18% of the U.S. population under age 65 – did not have health insurance.

By 2023, the number of uninsured Americans had dropped by nearly 50%, to 25.3 million people under 65, or 9.5% of the total population.

I’m a gerontologist who studies the U.S. health care system. ACA health care subsidies are at the center of a now monthlong U.S. government shutdown that could become the longest in U.S. history. So I looked at the available data about ACA marketplace plan usage in Florida to understand how the debates in Washington could affect access to health care in the Sunshine State going forward.

How the ACA expanded access to health insurance

The ACA implemented a three-pronged strategy to expand access to affordable health insurance.

One was the use of fines. The government fined anyone – until 2018 – who chose not to get health insurance. The government also fined businesses with 50 or more full-time employees that didn’t offer their employees affordable health care plans. The idea was to offer incentives for healthy people to get insurance to lower costs for everyone.

Ultimately, the fines had little impact on the number of insured Americans, with one notable exception: The employer-required expansion allowed young adults ages 19 to 25 to remain on their parents’ health insurance plan. For this group, the uninsured rate dropped from 31.5% in 2010 to 13.1% in 2023.

Second, the ACA allowed for Medicaid to be expanded to low-income Americans who were employed but working in low-wage jobs. The expansion of Medicaid to low-income workers at 138% of the federal poverty level was originally required nationwide. But a 2012 Supreme Court ruling allowed states to choose whether they would participate in Medicaid expansion.

As of 2025, 16 million Americans are covered by the expansion. However, 10 states, including Florida, have opted out.

The third way the ACA changed the health insurance system is that it established health insurance subsidies that the government can provide. Those subsidies are for low- and moderate-income Americans who do not receive health insurance through their employers and aren’t eligible for Medicaid, Medicare or any other government-operated health insurance program.

This established a private health insurance marketplace that would include federal subsidies to make insurance more affordable. As of October 2025, more than 24 million Americans currently get their health insurance through the subsidized marketplace.

Florida and the ACA marketplace

The number of people insured under the ACA in each state varies. But the state with the largest number of residents on marketplace insurance plans is Florida. About 4.7 million Florida residents are covered through these plans, representing 27% of the state’s under-65 population, compared to the national average of 8.8%. Of those on marketplace plans, 98% receive a subsidy at some level.

There are several reasons why this rate is so much higher in Florida than elsewhere.

First, only 40% of Sunshine State residents are covered by an employer-based health insurance plan, compared to 49% for the nation as a whole.

This is the lowest rate in the country. A contributing factor is that Florida ranks fifth in the proportion of workforce that is self-employed, with 1.3 million Floridians in this category.

The state’s lower rate could also be related to the high number of seasonal and part-time workers in the tourism industry.

Another reason is that the state has relatively few people enrolled in Medicaid, the federal program that provides mainly low-income people with health insurance coverage. Among Floridians ages 44 to 64, only 11% are enrolled in Medicaid, compared to 17% for the nation overall.

Florida hasn’t expanded Medicaid, and it’s also more restrictive than most states about who can enroll in the program.

States set their own Medicaid eligibility criteria, and they determine what services Medicaid will cover and at what cost. Florida has the second-lowest Medicaid expenditures per enrollee in the nation, and it ranks last on Medicaid expenditures for adults under 65.

An uncertain path ahead

Because Florida residents rely heavily on marketplace plans, ending ACA subsidies would have a big effect on Floridians.

Unless Congress reverses course and preserves the insurance subsidies that have not been renewed, the average marketplace plan premium is predicted to increase by more than 100%, from $74 to $159 per month. An American earning $28,000 annually – $13.50 per hour – would see a fivefold increase, from $27 to $130 per month. And a worker making $35,000 per year would see their premium increase from $86 to $217 per month.

At 13.4%, Florida already has the third-highest proportion of uninsured residents under 65. It is safe to assume that if the federal marketplace subsidies disappear and health insurance premiums become unaffordable for more people, the result will be more uninsured Floridians. And if healthy, younger people can’t afford insurance, premiums are likely to go up for everyone else with insurance.

The path to resolve the ongoing debate is uncertain. In my view, however, it is clear that states such as Florida, Texas and Georgia, which haven’t expanded Medicaid and rely heavily on the marketplace plans, will be dramatically affected by cuts to federal subsidies.

Robert Applebaum does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Why are 4.7 million Floridians insured through ACA marketplace plans, and what happens if they lose their subsidies? – https://theconversation.com/why-are-4-7-million-floridians-insured-through-aca-marketplace-plans-and-what-happens-if-they-lose-their-subsidies-268269

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Jeffrey Fields, Professor of the Practice of International Relations, USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

“I think we’re just going to kill people that are bringing drugs into our country. OK? We’re going to kill them. You know, they’re going to be, like, dead,” President Donald Trump said in late October 2025 of U.S. military strikes on boats in the Caribbean Sea north of Venezuela.

The Trump administration asserted without providing any evidence that the boats were carrying illegal drugs. Fourteen boats that the administration alleged were being operated by drug traffickers have been struck, killing 43 people.

On Oct. 24, the administration began a substantial military buildup in the region. The Pentagon moved the aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford and some of its strike group, along with several other naval ships, to the Caribbean and moved F-35 fighter jets to Puerto Rico. This is the largest U.S. naval deployment in the Caribbean Sea since the Cuban missile crisis in 1962.

According to the White House, the naval buildup and strikes on boats in international waters are part of counternarcotics operations. The vessels targeted allegedly belonged to Venezuelan drug smugglers, though the administration has produced no evidence that there were drugs on the boats, or what type. Trump has named fentanyl as one of them.

At times the president and some of his advisers have referred to the operators and occupants of the boats as “narco-terrorists.” But they have offered no explanation why the people would be considered terrorists.

The president and his advisers’ own words have also indicated that the larger intentions of the administration could be to topple the government of Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela.

But as a former political-military analyst and former senior adviser at the Department of Defense, I find it hard to discern a coherent strategy or objective.

The puzzling drug angle

The boats that have been hit all had origins in, or connections to, Venezuela, and all were struck in the Caribbean Sea and in the Pacific north of Colombia, making the operation particularly puzzling. Venezuela is not a major producer of fentanyl or cocaine. The major cocaine trafficking routes are in the Pacific Ocean, not the Caribbean.

Typically, the U.S. Coast Guard stops vessels suspected of carrying illegal drugs in international waters. In 2025, the Coast Guard has interdicted a record amount of illegal drugs and precursor chemicals in the Caribbean. It is notable that the amount of methamphetamine precursor chemicals interdicted far exceeds that of fentanyl.

After interdiction, the Coast Guard typically begins a process that adheres to legal strictures, detaining the crew and eventually turning them over to a U.S. law enforcement agency.

But the Trump strikes have summarily killed most of the people on the boats and presumably destroyed any of the alleged illicit drugs. Many observers and legal experts have said the killings amount to murder.

Trump’s preoccupation with Venezuela

Trump has had a fixation with the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua for some time, adding to his administration’s focus on Venezuela.

The administration designated Tren de Aragua a terrorist organization in January, along with several other drug cartels. But the White House statement announcing the designation made no mention of any behavior or activity that would constitute terrorism.

Under U.S. law, terrorism is defined as politically motivated violence, usually targeting a civilian population, intended to bring about political change. The terrorist designation allows the government to pursue actions such as seizing assets and imposing travel restrictions on those appearing on the list of Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations.

But the designation of a criminal gang with no clear political ideology or objectives mischaracterizes the group. That calls into question some of the White House’s motivations.

Then there’s the odd incident of the covert operation that wasn’t covert.

In early October, The New York Times reported that Trump had authorized covert operations in Venezuela and authorized the CIA to conduct “lethal strikes” inside the country.

Surprisingly, Trump confirmed that he had indeed authorized covert action. Yet the defining feature of a covert operation is that the role of the government is hidden.

Trump’s fixation on Venezuela goes back to his first term, when he also had Maduro’s regime in his sights. The administration eventually charged Maduro with leading the Cartel de los Soles – Cartel of the Suns – an informal criminal network tied to high-level Venezuelan military officials believed to have conducted drug trafficking into the U.S. The White House has also claimed that Maduro controls Tren de Aragua.

Independent observers assert that opposition leader Edmundo González Urrutia handily won the 2024 presidential election. The government-controlled National Electoral Council, however, declared Maduro the winner. If the White House has greater intentions in Venezuela, such as regime change, which some anonymous officials have suggested, Trump has tipped off Maduro to be vigilant.

Thorny issues

If the goal of the administration is interdiction of dangerous illicit drugs like cocaine, Colombia is a much bigger source. Venezuela acts mainly as a minor trans-shipment conduit rather than a producer.

In terms of mitigating the effects of drugs and narcotics in the United States, multiple studies over decades have found that measures taken to decrease demand in the U.S. rather than supply-side interdiction are more effective in reducing harm.

With little public information to suggest an overall strategy or objective, legal problems related to the maritime strikes become apparent.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said that the activities were a “counter drug operation.” But he went further in saying that instead of interdicting the boats, they would be blown up.

The method of interdiction and destruction of the boats and lives of those involved by a military strike presents problems, especially in terms of U.S. armed forces performing law enforcement duties. This would be proscribed by the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits federal armed forces from performing law enforcement activities.

As for actions targeting Venezuela, Trump has said he would not ask Congress for a declaration of war but would notify it of any ground operation.

The 1973 War Powers Act, which requires the president to notify Congress before hostilities and brief it afterward, would apply to this situation. But almost every president since its passing has ignored it at some point.

Though some Republicans in Congress have objected to the military actions so far, the Senate in early October voted down a resolution that would have prevented further strikes in the Caribbean.

The Trump administration continues to depict its activities in international waters as a military operation and the smugglers as enemy combatants. Most legal experts dismiss this and characterize the strikes as extrajudicial killings.

In reply to a flippant and profane response from Vice President JD Vance about the killings, Republican Senator Rand Paul wrote on social media, “Did he ever wonder what might happen if the accused were immediately executed without trial or representation?? What a despicable and thoughtless sentiment it is to glorify killing someone without a trial.”

If Trump and his advisers like Rubio and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth are taken at their word in scattered statements on the activities around Venezuela, many questions remain, such as why the boats are being destroyed and their occupants killed rather than interdicted.

Jeffrey Fields receives funding from the Carnegie Corporation of New York.

– ref. Trump’s anti-Venezuela actions lack strategy, justifiable targets and legal authorization – https://theconversation.com/trumps-anti-venezuela-actions-lack-strategy-justifiable-targets-and-legal-authorization-268363

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Ethan Murray, Postdoctoral Researcher, NOAA Hurricane Research Division, University of Colorado Boulder

Hurricane Melissa grew into one of the most powerful Atlantic tropical cyclones in recorded history on Oct. 28, 2025, hitting western Jamaica with 185 mph sustained winds. The Category 5 hurricane blew roofs off buildings and knocked down power lines, its torrential rainfall generated mudslides and flash flooding, and its storm surge inundated coastal areas.

Melissa had been wobbling south of the island for days, quickly gaining strength over the hot Caribbean Sea, before taking a sharp turn to the northeast that morning.

As a hurricane researcher, I work with colleagues at NOAA’s Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory to improve predictions of hurricanes’ tracks and strengths. Accurate forecasts of Melissa’s turn to the northeast gave many people across Jamaica, Cuba and the eastern Bahamas extra time to evacuate to safer areas before the hurricane headed their way.

Throughout 2025, most hurricanes similarly veered off toward the open Atlantic, sparing the U.S. mainland. To understand the forces that shaped these storms and their paths, let’s take a closer look at Melissa and the 2025 hurricane season.

The origins of Atlantic tropical cyclones

Before they evolve into powerful hurricanes, storm systems start out as jumbled clusters of clouds over the open ocean.

Many of 2025’s Atlantic tropical cyclones began life far from the U.S. coastline in the warm waters west of Africa, near the Cape Verde islands. These Cape Verde hurricanes are consistently blown toward the United States, especially during peak hurricane season.

The driving force steering these storms is a hot, semi-permanent high-pressure air mass often found spinning above the Atlantic Ocean known as the Bermuda high or Azores high.

When this high-pressure system, or subtropical ridge, is positioned farther east, closer to the Azores islands, its strong, clockwise-rotating winds typically curve tropical cyclones briskly out to sea toward their demise in the cold North Atlantic. When the high-pressure ridge is closer to the U.S. and centered over Bermuda, it can send storms crashing into the U.S. coast.

Because that high-pressure system was positioned further east in summer and fall 2025, many of the season’s strongest storms, such as hurricanes Erin, Gabrielle and Humberto, swung east of the U.S. mainland. Combined with an active jet stream above the Southeast U.S., most tropical cyclones were steered away from the Atlantic coast.

The clouds that eventually became Hurricane Melissa traveled farther to the south, avoiding the Bermuda high and making their way into the Caribbean Sea.

Tropical cyclones’ high-stakes balancing act

After a tropical cyclone forms, its path is guided by the movement of air surrounding it, known as atmospheric steering currents. These steering currents direct the forward movement of storms in the Atlantic at speeds ranging from a sluggish 1 mph to a blistering 70 mph or more.

Hurricane Melissa’s meandering track was determined by these steering currents. At first, the system was caught between winds from high-pressure systems to its northwest and southeast. This setup trapped the storm over the warm Caribbean Sea for days, just to the south of Jamaica.

As a tropical cyclone is steered by outside forces, its internal makeup also constantly evolves, changing how the storm interacts with its steering currents.

When Hurricane Melissa was a weak, lopsided system, it didn’t receive much of a push from its upper-level environment. But as the hurricane gained strength from the very warm ocean below, it grew taller. Like a skyscraper reaching high into the air, major hurricanes like Melissa have towering thunderstorms and feel more of a push from upper-level winds than weaker storms do.

Melissa’s center also became aligned vertically, allowing the tropical cyclone to rapidly intensify from 70 mph to a staggering 140 mph sustained winds in 24 hours.

Eventually, the precarious atmospheric balancing act holding Melissa in place collapsed. A ripple in the jet stream known as an atmospheric trough steered the hurricane to the northeast and into the Jamaican coast.

Melissa’s snail’s pace of about 2 mph was rare but not unheard of. Slow storms like Melissa are more common in October, as steering currents are often very weak or pushing in opposite directions, which can trap a tropical cyclone in place. Similar steering currents affected Hurricane Matthew in 2016.

Tragically, stalled tropical cyclones often bring prolonged rainfall, winds, flash flooding and storm surge with them. The wind and downpours can be extreme for mountain communities, as their high topography enhances local rainfall that can trigger mudslides and flooding, as Jamaica saw from Melissa.

Improving storm track forecasting

Meteorologists generally understand how atmospheric steering currents guide tropical cyclones, yet forecasting these wind patterns remains a challenge. Depending on the atmospheric setup, certain hurricanes can be harder to forecast than others, as changes to steering currents can be subtle.

New approaches to hurricane track forecasting include using machine learning models, such as Google DeepMind, which outperformed many traditional models in forecasting storm tracks this hurricane season. Rather than solving a complex set of equations to make a forecast, DeepMind looks at statistics of previous hurricane tracks to infer the path of a current storm.

NOAA Hurricane Hunter reconnaissance data can also accelerate progress in predicting tropical cyclone paths. Recent tests show how accounting for specific measurements from within a hurricane can improve forecasts. Certain flight patterns that Hurricane Hunters and drones fly through strong hurricanes can also improve predictions of a storm’s path.

Scientists and engineers aim to further improve hurricane track and intensity forecasts through research into storm behavior and improving hurricane models to better inform the public when danger is on the way.

Ethan Murray receives funding from the Office of Naval Research and National Science Foundation. He works for The University of Miami and NOAA Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory.

– ref. Hurricane Melissa turned sharply to devastate Jamaica − how forecasters knew where it was headed – https://theconversation.com/hurricane-melissa-turned-sharply-to-devastate-jamaica-how-forecasters-knew-where-it-was-headed-268183

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Ben Belton, Professor of International Development, Michigan State University

Drones have become integrated into everyday life over the past decade – in sectors as diverse as entertainment, health care and construction. They have also begun to transform the way people grow food.

In a new study published in the journal Science, we show that use of agricultural drones has spread extremely rapidly around the world. In our research as social scientists studying agriculture and rural development, we set out to document where agricultural drones have taken off around the world, what they are doing, and why they have traveled so far so fast. We also explored what these changes mean for farmers, the environment, the public and governments.

From toys to farm tools

Just a few years ago, agricultural drones were expensive, small and difficult to use, limiting their appeal to farmers. In contrast, today’s models can be flown immediately after purchase and carry loads weighing up to 220 pounds (100 kg) – the weight of two sacks of fertilizer.

Their prices vary from country to country due to taxes, tariffs and shipping costs. In the U.S., a drone owner can expect to spend US$20,000 to $30,000 for the same equipment that a farmer in China could buy for less than $10,000. However, most farmers hire service providers, small businesses that supply drones and pilots for a fee, making them easy and relatively affordable to use.

Agricultural drones are now akin to flying tractors – multifunctional machines that can perform numerous tasks using different hardware attachments. Common uses for drones on farms include spraying crops, spreading fertilizer, sowing seeds, transporting produce, dispensing fish feeds, painting greenhouses, monitoring livestock locations and well-being, mapping field topography and drainage, and measuring crop health. This versatility makes drones valuable for growing numerous crops, on farms of all sizes.

Technological leapfrogging

We estimated the number of agricultural drones operating in some of the world’s leading agricultural countries by scouring online news and trade publications in many different languages. This effort revealed where agricultural drones have already taken off around the world.

Historically, most agricultural technology – tractors, for example – has spread from high-income countries to middle- and then lower-income ones over the course of many decades. Drones partially reversed and dramatically accelerated this pattern, diffusing first from East Asia to Southeast Asia, then to Latin America, and finally to North America and Europe. Their use in higher-income regions is more limited but is accelerating rapidly in the U.S.

China leads the world in agricultural drone manufacturing and adoption. In 2016, a Chinese company introduced the first agriculture-specific quadcopter model. There are now more than 250,000 agricultural drones reported to be in use there. Other middle-income countries have also been enthusiastic adopters. For instance, drones were used on 30% of Thailand’s farmland in 2023, up from almost none in 2019, mainly by spraying pesticides and spreading fertilizers.

In the U.S., the number of agricultural drones registered with the Federal Aviation Administration leaped from about 1,000 in January 2024 to around 5,500 in mid-2025. Industry reports suggest those numbers substantially underreport U.S. drone use because some owners seek to avoid the complex registration process. Agricultural drones in the U.S. are used mainly for spraying crops such as corn and soy, especially in areas that are difficult to reach with tractors or crop-dusting aircraft.

Safer, but not risk-free

In countries such as China, Thailand and Vietnam, millions of smallholder farmers have upgraded from the dangerous and tiring job of applying agrochemicals by hand with backpack sprayers to using some of the most cutting-edge technology in the world, often using the same models that are popular in the U.S.

Shifting from applying chemicals with backpack sprayers to drones substantially reduces the risk of direct exposure to toxins for farmers and farmworkers.

However, because drones usually spray from a height of at least 6 feet (2 meters), if used improperly, they can spread droplets containing pesticides or herbicides to neighboring farms, waterways or bystanders. That can damage crops and endanger people and nature.

Saving labor or displacing it?

Drones save farmers time and money. They reduce the need for smallholders – people who farm less than 5 acres (2 hectares), which account for 85% of farms globally – to do dangerous and tiring manual spraying and spreading work on their own farms. They also remove the need to hire workers to do the same.

By eliminating some of the last remaining physically demanding work in farming, drones may also help make agriculture more attractive to rural youth, who are often disillusioned with the drudgery of traditional farming. In addition, drones create new skilled employment opportunities in rural areas for pilots, many of whom are young people.

On the downside, using drones could displace workers who currently earn a living from crop spraying. For instance, according to one estimate from China, drones can cover between 10 and 25 acres (4 to 10 hectares) of farmland per hour when spraying pesticides. That is equivalent to the effort of between 30 and 100 workers spraying manually. Governments may need to find ways to help displaced workers find new jobs.

Sky’s the limit

Drones spray and spread fertilizers and seeds evenly and efficiently, so that less is wasted. They may also reduce damage to crops in the field and consume less energy than large farm machines such as tractors.

In combination, these factors may increase the amount of food that can be produced on each acre of land, while reducing the amount of resources needed to do so. This outcome is a holy grail for agricultural scientists, who refer to it as “sustainable intensification.”

However, much of the evidence so far on yield gains from drone-assisted farming is anecdotal, or based on small studies or industry reports.

The drone revolution is reshaping farming faster than almost any technology before it. In just five years, millions of farmers around the world have embraced drones. Early signs point to big benefits: greater efficiency, safer working conditions and improved rural livelihoods. But the full picture isn’t clear yet.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Agricultural drones are taking off globally, saving farmers time and money – https://theconversation.com/agricultural-drones-are-taking-off-globally-saving-farmers-time-and-money-265154

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Félice Lê-Scherban, Associate Professor of Epidemiology, Drexel University

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, is the largest, most effective tool the U.S. has to reduce food insecurity. As of late 2025, it helps more than 42 million people – including 2 million Pennsylvanians and nearly half a million Philadelphians – buy groceries.

But starting Nov. 1, 2025, Pennsylvania will stop distributing SNAP benefits due to the federal government shutdown, which began Oct. 1.

Félice Lê-Scherban, a public health researcher and associate professor of epidemiology at Drexel University, studies food insecurity among low-income young children and their families in Philadelphia. The Conversation U.S. asked her about the program and what impact its suspension would have – especially in Philadelphia.

What is SNAP?

SNAP benefits – sometimes called food stamps – are provided through a federally funded program administered by the states. The amount of help received depends on a family’s income and the number and ages of the people in the household. Currently, benefits average just over US$6 per person per day. In Pennsylvania, the monthly benefits are loaded onto participants’ electronic benefits transfer cards, or EBT cards, during the first 10 business days of each month.

Researchers have found that SNAP benefits reduce poverty and food insecurity – a term for when people don’t have consistent access to enough food for all household members to lead active, healthy lives. It also contributes to healthy growth and development in childhood, and lower risks for obesity, diabetes, hypertension and poor mental health later in life.

Studies have also found that when eligible families lose access to SNAP benefits, even temporarily, they are more likely to get sick, and their children are at a greater risk of developmental delays.

Additionally, losing SNAP and similar benefits can strain household finances, forcing low-income people to choose between skipping meals or forgoing other basic needs like rent, utilities and prescription drugs.

How is the government shutdown affecting SNAP benefits in Pennsylvania?

The Department of Agriculture notified SNAP state agency directors in October that it would stop funding the program should the shutdown continue past Nov. 1. The federal agency directed all states to withhold November benefits until further notice.

The USDA is taking this step even though it has more than $5 billion in its coffers, which could fund approximately two-thirds of what the nation spends each month on SNAP benefits.

In the more than 60-year history of SNAP and the programs that preceded it, the USDA has never before refused to spend contingency funds to disburse monthly benefits. During previous shutdowns, including the 35 days in 2018-2019, the federal government used the department’s contingency funds to ensure SNAP wasn’t interrupted.

On Oct. 17, the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services issued a statement to the more than 2 million Pennsylvanians participating in SNAP. It warned them that they won’t receive their November benefits or any benefits thereafter until the USDA releases funds again.

Pennsylvania is also among 17 states that have suspended approving new SNAP applications until the government reopens, leaving hundreds, if not thousands, of food-insecure families in a prolonged state of hardship.

This disruption is likely to rattle the broader economy. About 12% of U.S. grocery sales are made with SNAP benefits, and over 9,800 supermarkets and other Pennsylvania retailers accept them.

What does this mean for people in Philadelphia?

There are over 470,000 SNAP recipients in Philadelphia – 3 in 10 Philadelphians – who will not receive these benefits until the government shutdown ends.

In the meantime, state agencies are urging people who get SNAP benefits to visit food banks, food pantries and soup kitchens, which are run by nonprofits and not the government. Unfortunately, it seems unlikely that those organizations will be able to keep up. For every meal nonprofits provide, SNAP provides nine.

Additionally, the Pennsylvania state budget impasse – the Commonwealth has been without a budget for nearly four months – has already affected other state-run programs that food banks in Philadelphia rely on.

This is particularly troubling because even when receiving their full benefit, most people who are enrolled in SNAP across the country say that they frequently struggle to afford a healthy diet.

Low-income parents and guardians in Philadelphia, according to research I’ve conducted and studies by my colleagues, say they strain to stretch their dollars to feed their children amid rising food prices, and sometimes skip meals or delay paying bills when the benefit runs out before the end of the month.

A robust body of evidence has demonstrated the serious mental and physical harm that food insecurity – even for short periods – causes across the lifespan. It can lead to billions of dollars of avoidable costs due to health care and educational needs, and lost productivity.

How this disruption of SNAP and other nutrition programs increases food insecurity will be hard to measure. The Trump administration has canceled the USDA’s long-standing annual report on food security.

What can state and federal leaders do to fund the program?

The federal government and Pennsylvania lawmakers have options to at least restore some SNAP benefits in the state while the shutdown continues.

The USDA can reverse its earlier ruling and disburse its more than $5 billion in emergency funds and issue guidance that states should continue to accept and process new SNAP applications. This would help states provide at least partial benefits to their residents enrolled in SNAP and ensure that new applicants get all the benefits they’re eligible for.

The federal government can allocate discretionary and reserve funds to SNAP for the duration of the shutdown so benefits are not interrupted. The government did this with Supplemental Nutrition for Women, Infants, and Children, or WIC benefits, as well as farm aid earlier this month.

The government of Pennsylvania and other state governments can pick up the costs of the program for November with their own state budget stabilization funds, also known as “rainy day funds.” Pennsylvania’s rainy day fund holds more than $7 billion – well above what’s needed to cover its SNAP benefits for November. Some states have already committed to doing this.

Read more of our stories about Philadelphia and Pennsylvania.

Félice Lê-Scherban is the Philadelphia site principal investigator of Children’s HealthWatch. She receives funding from the National Institutes of Health. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

– ref. SNAP benefit freeze will leave millions nationwide struggling to pay for food – including 472,711 people in Philadelphia – https://theconversation.com/snap-benefit-freeze-will-leave-millions-nationwide-struggling-to-pay-for-food-including-472-711-people-in-philadelphia-268337