Day 294: The Cruelty is the Point

 

There’s been a popular mantra about Trump and his toxic MAGA agenda for some time now: The cruelty is the point. It refers to how many—perhaps all—of Trump’s policies aren’t engineered for results, but for pain. Pain directed at those he and his ilk deem undesirable: non-MAGA voters, the vulnerable, the inconvenient. The recent political and legal wrangling over SNAP benefits is a perfect example.

When the SNAP fund began running dry due to the government shutdown, Vice President JD Vance—whom Trump once called “JP Mandell”—claimed the administration would like to release emergency funds, but couldn’t:

“We can’t just tap emergency funds for SNAP without congressional authorization. That’s not how budgeting works—even in a shutdown.” — JD Vance, interview with Fox Business, October 30, 2025

Needless to say, this was an absurd idea because the SNAP emergency fund was created precisely to mitigate situations such as the current government shutdown. Without SNAP benefits, millions of Americans would go hungry, after all.  The emergency fund was designed to avert such an outcome.  

But the cruelty is the point. 

We know this because Trump said so:

"They've lost their minds. All they have to do, is say the government is open and that's the end of it. And you know largely, when you talk about SNAP, you're talking about largely Democrats, but... I'm president. I want to help everybody. I want help Democrats and Republicans," he said.

To begin with, there is no authoritative figure that precisely tabulates party affiliation with SNAP benefits, despite claims to the contrary (anecdotal evidence suggests that usage is near-equally split across party lines).  But even if Democrats were the majority, what difference would it make? What’s telling is that Trump, unprompted, admits he doesn’t see Americans, he sees Democrat Americans and Republican Americans. Hunger becomes a partisan weapon. And cruelty becomes policy.

💀💀💀💀💀

Am I reading too much into this? You tell me. Recently, the administration’s refusal to use emergency funds for SNAP was challenged in court. Now, if they truly wanted to feed people—if hunger was the problem and not the point—you’d think they’d welcome the legal clarity. But they didn’t. Team MAGA went to court to argue against releasing the emergency funding. And when the court disagreed, pointing out that the emergency fund was created for just this sort of emergency, Team MAGA still refused to comply with the ruling, something that brought a strong rebuke from the judge hearing the case, as reported by the New York Times:

Judge McConnell attributed the inappropriate delay, in part, to an attempt by President Trump and his aides to disrupt the program “for political reasons.” He also pointed to public comments by Mr. Trump, who said at one point that he would halt all food stamp payments until Democrats struck a deal to end the shutdown, now in its sixth week.

“This should never happen in America,” the judge said, warning that millions of poor families could go hungry in the absence of reliable federal aid.

These are not policymakers. They are saboteurs. And in the tradition of Stalin or Mao, they would watch their own citizens starve—gleefully—if it meant advancing the agenda.

💀💀💀💀💀

But the cruelty doesn't end there! 

As the legal wrangling dragged on, some states—acting in the best tradition of the federal republic—stepped in. They began dispersing emergency SNAP funds on their own, a stopgap measure to keep people from going hungry while Washington stalled. A truly beneficent administration would applaud such efforts, even if it believed them misguided.

But not this one. Not when the cruelty is the point.

Again, as per the New York Times:

The Trump administration told states that they must “immediately undo” any actions to provide full food stamp benefits to low-income families, in a move that added to the chaos and uncertainty surrounding the nation’s largest anti-hunger program during the government shutdown.

The Agriculture Department issued the command late Saturday in a memo, which The New York Times later viewed. That guidance threatened to impose harsh financial penalties on states that did not “comply” quickly with the new federal orders.

It is falsely attributed to Marie Antoinette that she responded to the suffering of the French people with a glib remark: “Let them eat cake.” King Trump is worse. Confronted with hungry Americans, he offers not cake, not crumbs, just indifference. “Let them eat air” is his cold rebuttal.

The cruelty is the point. And it should sicken the soul of every decent person in this nation.

💀💀💀💀💀