New Food Stamp Rules: Who Loses Out?; China Targets America’s Shipyards | NTD Newsroom (Oct. 21)

Federal officials plan to enforce changes to the food stamp program, SNAP. Beginning in November, SNAP gives money to people to buy groceries. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the changes will cut federal funding for SNAP by $187 billion through 2034. Joining us now to tell us more about the upcoming changes to the food SNAP program is Lawrence Wilson, reporter for the Epoch Times. Lawrence, always good to see you. Thank you for joining us today. Can you talk to us about what are the immediate changes to the program uh we should be aware of? >> Well, the most immediate thing that's going to be happening is so-called work requirements are going to be changed uh starting November 1st as you mentioned. Now, this is a and it adds some to existing work requirements. So, people who receive SNAP benefits generally are going to be required to work or attend job training or volunteer in the community for 20 hours a week or 80 hours a month. And of course, there are some exceptions to that. But the idea is that it gets people who uh are able to do something productive even if they can't afford uh or work a full-time job or uh you know if they still need assistance, but at least they do something productive uh with their time if if they're able to do it. >> But will the program be more accessible or less uh or rather more accessible or or to to more people or less after these changes? Well, there's another change too that's going to involve uh people who have immigrated into the country and don't have a legal status. So, there there's going to be some changes there, too, which I uh we can talk about later if you like. But, uh yeah, less accessible. It's estimated that about 2.4 million fewer people will be receiving SNAP benefits uh by 2034 according to the Congressional Budget Office. Now, that compares with about 41 million people a month who are receiving SNAP benefits right now. >> The number of groups uh that used to be exempt from the worker requirement no longer uh will be. Can you break down that for us? >> Yeah. Um there was an exemption for people who were uh for example uh younger than age 55. So people 18 to 54. It really applied to adults. that is now that's been moved up to younger than age 65. So if you're 64 or younger uh and able-bodied, you would be expected to work if possible. Um people with dependent children have been exempted from this requirement as well, but they've changed the age limit for the dependent children. It used to be up to 18 years old living at home. Now it's up to our underage age 13 and living at home. So if you have older teen kids, you could be expected uh to participate in those work requirements. Also, there were exemptions for people who were homeless, uh certain veterans, and uh people who were age 24 or younger than age 24 who had aged out of uh the foster care system. and those exemptions have now been taken away. >> Are there any potential sticking points with these changes? Are there uh any critics? Uh what are they saying? >> Yeah. Well, you know, critics uh say that these are people who are struggling in life already and people who are are working uh will be able to work or or who are able to work are working. So it's kind of uh you know pouring more coals on people who already have their feet to the fire so to speak. And uh in terms of changes that uh deal with the imig immigrant population, people say there's a humanitarian concern there that uh you know just not allowing benefits for people who may be indigent in the country regardless of how they got here. Uh that's a humanitarian concern. So there are some strong critics to these changes. Um what about uh illegal immigrants? What are what are the rules around um among this group of people accessing the stamps? >> Yeah, the uh the idea according to the one big beautiful bill is that people who are not legally residing in the United States are not going to be eligible for the benefit. And there are some exceptions to that. Uh there are people who uh have a legal residence as def they're a legal permanent legal resident sorry as defined by federal law or people who entered the US before June 30th 1948. So if you've been in the country that long and haven't left you would be eligible regardless of your immigration status. uh and immigrants who were allowed into the country under a parole by federal officials. And of course, there were quite a number of people who were quote parrolled or given an exception to come into the United States uh during the last several years and immigrants who are living in the United States but the authorities have decided not to deport. So there's some exceptions to that, but generally people not legally residing in the United States would not be eligible. Okay, Lawrence, just one more question. Uh, why is the administration making these changes? What what is it after? You know, aside from the cost saving of $187 billion. >> Well, that's a big part of it. And part of it, too, is the strain on the federal government versus the state governments. One thing we haven't talked about so far is another upcoming not November 1st but coming next year a shift to uh for some more of the administrative cost for the program from the federal government to the state. So it takes some pressure off the federal budget and of course you know our debt is growing rapidly. Beyond that they say it it's a good thing to get people active who can be active and doing something productive with their lives. It contributes to the economy and it's better for them. That's the administration's argument. And uh the argument uh regarding the immigrant population is that uh the benefits of taxpayers are reserved for American citizens. So they think that's a matter of fairness to taxpayers. >> Well, all right, Lawrence, good to see you. Good to talk to you today. Thank you. >> My pleasure. Republicans are exploring alternatives to reopen the government, but Democrats maintain their demands are a prequisite for any consideration. Our Washington correspondent Luis Eduardo Martinez has more on the story. The >> US economy has now lost hundreds of billions of dollars. We have federal workers who are desperate for pay and uncertain when they will get their next paycheck. You got families wondering if they'll go without food assistance next month because many people rely upon that. New federal loans and disaster aid have come to a complete halt. >> The National Nuclear Security Administration, the US agency that oversees the country's nuclear stockpile, has now furled over 1,400 of its employees, leaving less than 400 actively working. >> Is critical. The humans working on it are critical. We need to open the federal government as quickly as we can. This should not happen, but this was as long as we could stretch the funding for the federal workers. We were able to do some gymnastics and stretch it further for the contractors. >> Senate Democrats insist that the government shutdown is President Trump's fault despite the fact that it is Congress who holds the power of the purse. >> President's responsibility is to bring the parties together and find a way to make the government run and get a budget done. I'm stunned that he has been unwilling to invite Schumer uh and leader Jeff up to have that kind of conversation. A lot of people are in pain right now because this shutdown. >> Democrats who are in the minority in the House and the Senate maintain their demand to extend COVID era healthcare tax credits to reopen government. >> I'm not sure what they what it is they want. They want a bill, an alternative bill that spends $1.5 trillion. >> They're out here decrying the so-called uh forthcoming healthc care crisis. They say it's the one that they themselves created. The Democrats created Obamacare. They're the ones that created a subsidy with an expiration date. They're the ones that did all of this. Republicans are trying to fix it. >> Republicans are now considering a new year-long continuing resolution to reopen government given that Democrats have shown no interest in a regular appropriations process. >> Chuck Schumer and Hakee Jeff are terrified of their far left base in New York and around the country. So they have given in to their demands to shut down the government so that they themselves can get the left's approval and somehow salvage their political careers. >> Three Senate Democrats have consistently voted with Republicans to reopen the government. Senator John Federman from Pennsylvania is now even saying that he would support if Republicans tried to override the filibuster to end the shutdown. Reporting from Washington DC, Luis Aluardo Martinez, NTD News. Vice President JD Vance is in Israel today to shore up the fragile Gaza peace deal. It follows a brief burst of deadly fighting over the weekend. Here's Vance speaking earlier. >> I think that we are one week into President Trump's historic peace plan in the Middle East and things are going frankly better than I expected that they were. We are doing very well. We are in a very good place. We're going to have to keep working on it, but I think we have the team to do exactly that. So with all thanks to our partners both in Israel but all across uh the Gulf Arab states, Indonesia, the Turks, we are doing an amazing thing here. >> The peace plan was tested over the weekend with mutual accusations of violations, but both parties have said they're committed to the deal. Mance said he has great optimism that the ceasefire will hold. He added that the next priority is returning the bodies of deceased hostages. He also said if Hamas doesn't cooperate with the ceasefire, it will be obliterated. Here's the vice president announcing the opening of a center to monitor the peace agreement. Here at the Civilian Military Cooperation Center, which we are announcing the opening of, you have Israelis and Americans working hand inand to try to begin the plan to rebuild Gaza, to implement a long-term peace, and to actually ensure that you have security forces on the ground in Gaza, not composed of Americans, who can keep the peace over the long term. So, we've got a lot of work left to do. This is going to take a very, very long time. Vance met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other officials. He is also expected to meet with families of hostages whose remains are still in Gaza and some of the living hostages released last week. White House Envoy Steve Wood and President Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner are with Vance, who is expected to stay in the region until Thursday. Israel is waiting for Hamas to turn over the remains of 15 hostages. Hamas said it has recovered the remains of two more hostages and plans to hand them over today. President Trump says several US allies in the Middle East are ready to send forces into Gaza to, in his words, straighten out Hamas. Trump said he's told them to hold off for now. In a post on Truth Social today, he wrote that a number of nations in and around the Middle East had offered to take action with heavy force if Hamas fails to honor its agreement with the US. Trump said he's told those countries and Israel, "Not yet." Adding there's still hope Hamas will quote do the right thing. He warned that if not, the end of Hamas would be fast, furious, and brutal. Trump also thanks regional partners including Indonesia for what he called their strong support and cooperation with the US and the Middle East peace process. President Trump has called off an expected potential meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin. A White House official confirmed the news to the Apoch Times entity's sister media. The decision followed a phone call between US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. The two had uh the two had been expected to meet this week for uh a preparation of a possible summit. Joining us to discuss this and developments in the Middle East is Gerard Fiti, a foreign affairs analyst and attorney specializing in international law. Uh so good afternoon Gerard. First off, uh what do you make of this meeting being called off? You know, just last Thursday, President Trump said he spoke with Putin by phone and agreed to meet with him in Budapest, Hungary. uh you know he described the conversation as very productive. So what do you think happened since then? >> The conversations may well have been productive but it looks like the parties are not yet ready to sit down at the table for the type of negotiations that they need to engage in including with Ukraine in order to bring this the war there to a halt. So I think the meeting was a little bit premature. We're seeing an escalation in Russian attacks on the energy grid and missile attacks on Ukraine. So the timing is not very auspicious for the parties to sit down and actually try to resolve this. >> So then big picture-wise, how are you reading this in terms of what it could mean for the peace deal negotiations between Russia and Ukraine? >> I think the peace deal negotiations have always been challenging because you need to have some agreement. You need to have some basis for agreement. For Russia, what they are looking for is territorial conquest. They want ratification. and they want the world to agree that the land that they conquered through military force, they're entitled to keep. For Ukraine, that's very difficult to give up. Many hundreds of thousands of people died fighting inch by inch for their homeland. So, that's really the the biggest part, the biggest obstacle to peace is this agreement that would need to be hashed out on what happens with territory that's currently occupied by Russia. And with Ukraine not willing to back down and Russia not willing to back down right now we're still looking at a force of arms and both sides are looking to change the calculus with military force rather than through diplomacy. >> So as you know Gerard this is the second time a potential meeting between President Trump and Putin has fallen through. Um, I'm just thinking what does this tell you about what is taking place on Russia's end of ne the negotiations because I'm sure the US side and Ukraine is willing to go through with these negotiations. I think what it tells us is that Russia is not willing to make concessions that they've remained very firm in their position which they've repeated over and over again even to the language that they use. They have not changed that language. They still call uh Ukraine an illegitimate country. They still claim to be able to be entitled to all of Ukraine. So when you look at the language that's coming from Russia, their position is essentially unchanged. There's no real willingness to compromise. They're not backing down any. They don't want to even agree to keep just the territory that they gained by force of arms. They want the entire region even beyond what they've been able to capture militarily. So the biggest obstacle here is Russia. Russia does not see the need to negotiate right now. So Gerard, if uh diplomatic talks fail completely, what do you think the US's next approach might be? >> Well, diplomatic talks will will be ongoing for a while. I don't see them as failing completely, but the approach here now we will see President Zalinsky of Ukraine meeting with European leaders this week. And I think what we will see, as we have seen in discussions with the United States, is more armed shipments or more bolstering of Ukraine's defense forces in order to combat Russia and perhaps win a more decisive victory on the battlefield and bring Russia to the table. This is why in the past week we were hearing talk about perhaps Ukraine getting tomahawk missiles, something to change the balance of power and and make Russia realize that by force of arms, they're not likely to win. So, we're going to see ramping up of Ukraine's defense capabilities, of its military cap capabilities as a prelude to more negotiations. >> Okay. I see. All right. Um, I want to talk to you about the Middle East as well. Trump said, uh, allies in the region are enthusiastic about the idea of fighting Hamas in Gaza if the terror group doesn't uphold the ceasefire agreement with Israel. Um, this is part of uh, of course, the 20 point peace plan brokered by the Trump administration. So, Gerard, give us your analysis here of what Trump said. >> Well, I think that Trump is is is right that the Gulf countries are very enthusiastic about having Gaza become a more of a democracy, to see Hamas demilitarized, and to be able to participate in the reconstruction process. However, it's hard to see these countries wanting to be involved militarily uh against Hamas when Hamas is not clearly looking to lay down its weapons or give up any role in post-war governance, which is something that it's negotiating under Trump's plan. So I think the issue ultimately is how will Hamas be defeated if it's not willing to complete its disarmament and to to give up power after the war and Gulf countries are great in a in a great position to provide financial support for reconstruction and to help provide government support for a government of technocrats but no one really wants to deal militarily with Hamas. How how concerned do you think Hamas is about this possibility of US allies in the Middle East coming together to fight it? >> I think they're very concerned. But what's more concerning to Hamas is its own grasp on power within Gaza. Over the last two years, Hamas has lost not just fighters, but it has lost influence among its people. Because while Hamas rules Gaza, it's not the only terrorist organization there. There are other competing groups as well with which it has allied against Israel, but are just as willing to fight Hamas for power in in the post-war era. We also have the reemergence of powerful families and clans within Gaza that are also vying for power in post-war Gaza. All of this weakens Hamas's control. So now Hamas is essentially fighting an internal civil war to reassert its power. they're more concerned about losing power internally, but if there's also added pressure from Gulf countries in Israel, Hamas is quicker to crumble. >> So if uh if these Middle Eastern countries joined in on the fight in one form of another, what impact will that have on the region, do you see uh the dynamics there shifting because of this? >> Well, it it's very hard for these countries politically in the domestic sense to be involved in military fights against Hamas or in Gaza. If anything, they will be supportive of letting their airspace be used. They will perhaps commit equipment and supplies for military force. But I think ultimately these countries would be happy if the United States or if Israel dealt with go with Hamas on their own and they merely provided support. I think we're looking more at at that model because these countries have a domestic audience that's fairly supportive of the Palestinian cause and they don't want to be seen as intruding on on the Palestinian cause in Gaza by fighting Hamas. Is there anything that international law says about other countries potentially supporting um this this fight against Hamas? >> Well, the the clearest way to make this acceptable through international law is for the United Nations to pass a resolution, for the United Nations to vote on some kind of a peacekeeping or interim force or a security force. I think the Trump plan calls it a stabilizing force for Gaza. If the United Nations, if the Security Council agrees to that, and right now there's no reason to think that they wouldn't, that would effectively ratify these countries. But at the same time, being involved in peacekeeping operations is allowed under international law. But while at the same time, armed conflict, you would need a cause. You would need some rationale for involving yourself in the affairs of Gaza. So really, it depends on whether the United Nations gets involved. And it depends on whether this is a peacekeeping force or one that's meant to actually fight Hamas. >> Okay, Gerard, just one final question here. You know, the peace plan includes Hamas's disarmament, right? And exclusion from future government uh governance. How likely is that uh that both of these terms will be achieved without force? How likely do you think this ceasefire will hold? >> Well, that that always was the sticking point and it remains the sticking point. Hamas has no motive to disarm and it has no motive to give up power. I think there may be an opportunity here for negotiating away Hamas's armaments, letting them keep a small security force, for example, equivalent to a police force with some weapons. And Hamas may agree to that in exchange for a role in the future governments of Gaza. But it's very difficult for them to give up both their weapons and their position in government. So I think some negotiations will need to continue on the parameters of what weapons are given up, what disarmament occurs and the extent of their involvement. For example, we could look at models after World War II in in Europe and Japan perhaps pledging to give up terrorism or pledging to accept the legitimacy of Israel as a condition for participating in governance but still maintaining the name or the organization structure of Hamas. >> Well, all right, Gerard, I appreciate your time today. Thank you very much for coming on. >> My pleasure. Thank you. >> Today, Republican New York City mayoral candidate Curtis Leewa rejected calls for him to withdraw from the race. Despite many political observers calling on him to withdraw from the race, Siwa remained defiant. Several political observers have been urging Siwa to drop out in order for Andrew Cuomo to defeat the Democratic socialist nominees Mammdani. Sliwa said he was already offered money to drop out and he is now threatening to involve Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg if anyone else approaches him with an offer. Some observers are concerned that Slee was continued candidacy could split the vote and inadvertently help one of the other candidates. US trade representative Jameson Greer is urging Beijing to stop using economic coercion to discourage foreign companies from investing in American industry and warned that Washington will respond to China's measures accordingly. The warning comes after China imposed sanctions on a South Korean ship builder US branches last week. The move disrupts President Trump's plan to make ship building great again. entities. Tiffany Meyer spoke with retired US Marine Colonel Grant Nam, a senior fellow at the Center for Security Policy for his insights on Beijing's move. >> And ultimately, this is a tend intended via the South Korean companies to make it so the Americans don't rebuild their ship building industry with a with a very much ease. They're trying to interrupt that. But the Chinese are on the offensive. Uh but this is really a sea change in a certain respect when you look at Chinese behavior. and they are on the offensive. This is something new. >> China last week sanctioned five US subsidiaries of South Korean ship builder Pengua Ocean. It's a decision that went into effect immediately. The South Korean company, which owns a leading US shipyard in Philadelphia, plays a critical role in helping the US rebuild its ship building industry. The US has fallen from the world's number one ship builder to the 19th with the production capability of less than five ships a year. While China builds more than 1,700 ships per year, Washington accuses China of engaging in unfair trade practices in this field and hurting US ship businesses. The US government imposed port calls fees on Chinese ships starting last week. and China fighting back matched the USV with its own and sanctioned the South Korean enterprise. Ambassador Greer Monday called China's retaliation a economic coercion to influence American politics and control global supply chains and vowed to respond appropriately. And it's worth noting that President Trump and Chinese regime leader Xi Jinping are expected to meet in South Korea for their first bilateral meeting in less than two weeks. NUPW Research Center survey shows more Americans believe religion is gaining influence in national life than at any point in the last 15 years. According to the study, the share of adults who say religion's influence is growing jumped from 18 to 31% over the past year. While most Americans still think religion is losing ground, that number has fallen sharply from 80% last year to 64% this year. According to Pew, perception about faith's role has risen across nearly every age, political, and religious group. 59% of Americans now say their religion is influencing is is positive, marking a major shift in recent years.