Press Sec: digging emergencies funding for SNAP; Newsom’s Hollywood Wife unleashed on Trump

Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt addressed the SNAP funding situation during the shutdown, explaining that the administration is complying with a court order requiring partial SNAP payments but is forced to “dig into a contingency fund that is supposed to be for emergencies, catastrophes for war.” Her message to SNAP beneficiaries: call Democrats to reopen the government if you want full benefits. On Supreme Court consideration of Trump’s tariff authority, Leavitt expressed 100% confidence the Court would uphold the president’s emergency tariff power — noting tariffs had enabled peace deals, $600 billion in deficit reduction this year alone, and trillions in investment. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries dodged a direct question about whether Democratic embrace of socialist Zohran Mamdani would hurt the party in 2026 midterms, deflecting to attack Trump rather than answer. Gavin Newsom’s wife Jennifer Siebel Newsom delivered a theatrical attack on Trump, calling him “existential,” accusing him of being “cruel,” and claiming parents should refuse to “raise our children to kowtow to a man who preys on fear, who terrors his women, children, the LGBTQ community and immigrants.” Leavitt: “We are digging into a contingency fund that is supposed to be for emergencies, catastrophes for war … The best way to get the full amount of SNAP benefits to those beneficiaries is for Democrats to reopen the government.” On tariffs: “The president must have the emergency authority to utilize tariffs … this year alone, we are going to cut the deficit by 600 billion dollars, namely because of the president’s effective use of tariffs.”

SNAP Contingency Fund

Leavitt opened with the SNAP situation. “The administration is fully complying with the court order. I just spoke to the president about it.”

A federal court had ordered the administration to distribute partial SNAP benefits despite the shutdown, using existing contingency funds. The administration was complying but noting the consequences.

“The recipients of these SNAP benefits need to understand it’s going to take some time to receive this money because the Democrats have forced the administration into a very untenable position.”

The delay is procedural — agencies stretching limited funds, coordinating with states, and moving money through unusual channels takes time.

”Emergencies, Catastrophes, War”

“We are digging into a contingency fund that is supposed to be for emergencies, catastrophes for war.”

The USDA contingency fund exists for genuine emergencies — hurricanes, wars, disease outbreaks affecting food supply. Using it to maintain normal SNAP operations during a shutdown depletes it for those actual emergencies.

“And the president does not want to have to tap into this fund in the future. And that’s what he was referring to in his Truth Social post.”

Trump had posted on Truth Social opposing use of emergency funds for normal programs. The framework: save emergency funds for emergencies.

USDA Guidance

“So the Department of Agriculture, as for the latest SNAP payment and the judge’s order, put out guidance to states today on how to get that money to the recipients of SNAP. But it’s going to take some time.”

USDA was working through the procedural mechanics. States administer SNAP; USDA provides federal funding; the shutdown disrupted normal flow. The court-ordered distribution required new guidance.

“The best way to get the full amount of SNAP benefits to those beneficiaries is for Democrats to reopen the government.”

Leavitt’s simple pitch: partial SNAP via contingency fund is complex and delayed. Full SNAP requires normal appropriations — which require Democrats to pass the clean CR.

”Call the Democrats”

“So to anyone who is a SNAP beneficiary at home who needs that assistance, and the president was just saying, this is for people who are truly needy, who need food, who need this assistance from the United States government.”

Leavitt emphasized the SNAP recipient population — genuinely needy Americans requiring federal food assistance.

“Democrats are holding it up and making it difficult for the administration to get those payments out the door. So if you are at home and you want your SNAP benefits, call the Democrats and tell them to reopen the government.”

The direct political messaging: SNAP recipients should call Democratic senators and representatives demanding they end the shutdown. The shift in political pressure — from Republicans to Democrats — is the goal.

Supreme Court Tariff Case

Leavitt then pivoted to an upcoming Supreme Court case about Trump’s tariff authority. “I’ll tell you, the White House is always preparing for Plan B. It would be imprudent of the president’s advisors not to prepare for such a situation.”

Plan B preparation is prudent given the stakes. If the Court rules against Trump’s emergency tariff authority, alternative legal frameworks would need to be deployed immediately.

“Like that said, we are 100 percent confident in the president and his team’s legal argument and the merits of the law in this case. And we remain optimistic that the Supreme Court is going to do the right thing.”

Leavitt’s framework: confident in arguments, optimistic on outcome, but prepared regardless.

”Cannot Be Overstated”

“The importance of this case cannot be overstated. The president must have the emergency authority to utilize tariffs.”

Trump’s tariff power flows from multiple statutes:

• IEEPA (International Emergency Economic Powers Act)
• Section 232 (national security tariffs)
• Section 301 (unfair trade practices)
• Section 122 (balance of payments)

The case before the Court addresses IEEPA specifically — whether “emergency” authority extends to trade emergency frameworks.

“Look at what President Trump has been able to do with the leverage and the power of tariffs.”

Peace Through Tariffs

“He’s been able to sign peace deals all over the world and end global conflicts and literally save lives.”

Leavitt’s framework: tariffs aren’t just economic tools. They’re geopolitical leverage that enabled Trump’s eight-war-ending record. China framework deal, Middle East participation, various trade relationships — all anchored by tariff threat/relief.

“He’s been able to bring in trillions of dollars of investments into our country.”

The investment flow: Toyota, TSMC, Samsung, Apple, Stargate — all incentivized by tariff-mediated market access.

Deficit Reduction

“In fact, this year alone, we are going to cut the deficit by 600 billion dollars, namely because of the president’s effective use of tariffs.”

Tariff revenue has been substantial:

• Baseline tariffs: ~$300B annual pace
• Reciprocal tariffs: additional revenue from imbalanced trading partners
• Steel/aluminum: continued revenue

The $600B deficit reduction includes both tariff revenue AND reduced spending elsewhere (OBBB reforms, waste reduction, Medicaid fraud elimination).

“And the president strongly believes that economic security is a matter of national security. And tariffs have a lot to do with that.”

Leavitt articulated the framework: economic policy = national security. Tariffs create:

• Supply chain resilience (manufacturing reshoring)
• Strategic independence (semiconductors, pharmaceuticals)
• Diplomatic leverage (peace deal enabling)
• Revenue (deficit reduction, domestic priorities)

“Not Just About Trump”

“And this case is not just about President Trump. It’s about the use of this emergency authorization for tariffs for future presidents and administrations to come.”

Leavitt’s framework widened: the Court’s ruling affects future presidents regardless of party. Democratic and Republican presidents alike would lose or retain tariff power based on the outcome.

“And we’re confident and hopeful that the Supreme Court will do the right thing.”

Jeffries Dodges Mamdani

A reporter then asked about NYC mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani. “I’m just wondering, do you believe that a Democrat party embrace of socialism would hurt the party’s chance next November? And will there be a Democrat pivot away from Mammadani and more towards the center following today’s election?”

The reporter was asking whether Democrats would distance themselves from Mamdani’s socialist framework ahead of 2026 midterms.

Jeffries’ response didn’t address the question. “What I made clear is that given the existential nature of Donald Trump, his policies, his cruelty, his failures.”

Jeffries pivoted immediately to Trump attacks. The framework: any political challenge (including Mamdani socialism) becomes secondary to opposition to Trump. The implicit message: Democrats won’t distance from Mamdani because the anti-Trump coalition requires Mamdani in.

“Either.”

Incomplete sentence. Jeffries trailing off before completing the Trump critique.

Jennifer Siebel Newsom

The transcription then shifted to Jennifer Siebel Newsom, Gavin Newsom’s wife. “There is too much at stake.”

Siebel Newsom is a California documentary filmmaker and actress. Her Trump attack was intense.

“We refuse to raise our children to kowtow to a man who preys on fear, who terrors his women, children, the LGBTQ community and immigrants, who threatens and robs us of our hard-earned freedoms.”

The Whisper transcription mangled “terrorizes” to “terrors” — Siebel Newsom’s framing was that Trump “terrorizes” various groups.

“A man who disrespects our veterans and mocks our disabled, who strips health care and SNAP benefits from families who need them most.”

The list of Trump offenses per Siebel Newsom:

• Terrorizes women, children, LGBTQ, immigrants
• Threatens hard-earned freedoms
• Disrespects veterans
• Mocks the disabled
• Strips healthcare
• Strips SNAP benefits

Several of these are contested:

• Trump’s VA reforms have been popular with veterans
• The SNAP issue is actually the Democratic shutdown
• Healthcare: OBBB actually lowered premiums per CBO

The framework: Siebel Newsom’s characterization is standard California Democratic framing, not a balanced policy critique.

Context: California Politics

Jennifer Siebel Newsom is relevant politically — Gavin Newsom is widely expected to run for president in 2028. Her activism is part of his political positioning.

The timing — a Hollywood wife theatrically attacking Trump during a Democratic political challenge — is consistent with Newsom’s positioning as the anti-Trump brand leader.

California’s political dominance by Democrats (the super-majority Musk noted) provides the platform. Siebel Newsom’s messaging reaches national audiences through California-based media, Hollywood connections, and her own production company (Girls Club Entertainment).

Key Takeaways

• Leavitt on SNAP: “We are digging into a contingency fund that is supposed to be for emergencies, catastrophes for war … The best way to get the full amount of SNAP benefits to those beneficiaries is for Democrats to reopen the government … if you are at home and you want your SNAP benefits, call the Democrats and tell them to reopen the government.”
• Leavitt on tariff case: “The importance of this case cannot be overstated. The president must have the emergency authority to utilize tariffs … this year alone, we are going to cut the deficit by 600 billion dollars, namely because of the president’s effective use of tariffs.”
• Leavitt on framework: “The president strongly believes that economic security is a matter of national security. And tariffs have a lot to do with that. And this case is not just about President Trump. It’s about the use of this emergency authorization for tariffs for future presidents.”
• Jeffries dodging Mamdani question: “What I made clear is that given the existential nature of Donald Trump, his policies, his cruelty, his failures” — avoiding answering whether Democrats would distance from Mamdani’s socialism ahead of 2026 midterms.
• Siebel Newsom on Trump: “We refuse to raise our children to kowtow to a man who preys on fear, who terrors his women, children, the LGBTQ community and immigrants, who threatens and robs us of our hard-earned freedoms. A man who disrespects our veterans and mocks our disabled, who strips health care and SNAP benefits from families who need them most.”