By:<a href="https://stateline.org/author/jacob-fischler/">Jacob Fischler</a>

The U.S. Supreme Court temporarily&nbsp;blocked Friday night a lower court’s order that the Trump administration pay for a full month of food benefits, hours after some states began loading nutrition assistance funds on payment cards held by the 42 million Americans who use the program.

<a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/26221041-25a539-admin-stay/" target="_blank">In a two-page filing,</a>&nbsp;Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson&nbsp;accepted the government’s request to pause a Thursday order from Rhode Island Chief U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell while a lower appeals court hears the case.&nbsp;

His order Thursday compelled the U.S. Department of Agriculture to transfer funds from other programs to fund the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, for November. The Trump administration had said the ongoing government shutdown meant it could not pay November SNAP benefits.

“The applicants assert that, without intervention from this Court, they will have to ‘transfer an estimated $4 billion by tonight’ to fund SNAP benefits through November,” Jackson, who was appointed by President Joe Biden, wrote.&nbsp;

A stay is needed to reach an “expeditious resolution,” she wrote.

Jackson’s order froze SNAP payments to states that the USDA had&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/trump-administration-issues-november-snap-benefits-then-asks-supreme-court-intervene" target="_blank">appeared to authorize</a>&nbsp;earlier Friday before the administration appealed to the high court.

It was unclear Friday night what effect that might have on individual recipients’ electronic benefit transfer, or EBT, cards. A press release earlier Friday from California Gov. Gavin Newsom said some Californians had begun to see full benefits on their cards, following an order from a lower court.

In a Friday evening brief to the Supreme Court that followed a day of conflicting messages from the administration, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer said the high court should step in to protect the executive branch’s power from what he characterized as unprecedented overreach by McConnell.

By demanding that the USDA transfer money from a $23 billion fund for child nutrition programs to pay for November SNAP benefits, McConnell substituted his judgment for the agency’s, a violation of the constitutional separation-of-powers doctrine, Sauer argued.&nbsp;

The department’s decision to pay for partial November benefits, by using the roughly $5 billion remaining in a contingency fund, rather than by paying about $9 billion for a full month of benefits, was its decision to make and not reviewable by courts, Sauer said.

“USDA reasonably determined that the best course was to combine partial SNAP payments with stable funding for Child Nutrition Programs—versus jeopardize the latter to guarantee full payments with the former,” Sauer wrote. “The district court would have done otherwise. But it had no legal basis to ‘substitute its own policy judgment for that of the agency.’”

The lower court order — as well a midday Friday letter from the USDA to state SNAP administrators — had also led to confusion among states who started to demand SNAP funds in a way Sauer compared to a bank run.

Several states announced full funding would be available and began sending money to beneficiaries.

Immediately after McConnell’s order was published, Wisconsin demanded “100% of SNAP benefits,” Sauer wrote. Even though the USDA system rejected the file, the private-sector processor of the payment “moved forward, resulting in Wisconsin currently overdrawing its letter of credit by $20 million,” he said.

Kansas made a similar move. And some California SNAP users received their full benefits, according to Sauer’s brief.

McConnell on Thursday had ruled the department’s decision to withhold SNAP benefits arbitrary and capricious — the standard for judicial review of an executive branch action.&nbsp;

The $23 billion fund could spare the $4 billion needed to make November SNAP benefits whole and still maintain its intended purpose well beyond the month, so there was no need to maintain that fund at that level, he wrote.

Instead, the decision “predictably magnifies harm and undermines the very purpose of the program it administers,” McConnell wrote.

While federal agencies are due discretion from courts, such a “poor” use of decision-making power must be remedied, he said.

“Contrary to what the Defendants claim, 29 million children who participate in the Child Nutrition Program are not at risk of immediately going hungry in the event of a transfer,” he said. “Instead, SNAP recipients—16 million of whom are children—will go hungry if they do not receive their SNAP benefits this month.”

But Sauer responded that was not McConnell’s call to make.&nbsp;

The trial judge’s ruling improperly assumed that Congress would eventually replenish the child nutrition program fund, but the USDA was within its right to take a more cautious approach toward protecting the child nutrition funding, said the solicitor general.

“It obviously was not unlawful for the agency to see things differently—and refuse to starve Peter to feed Paul, by gambling school lunches tomorrow in exchange for more SNAP money today,” he wrote. “Indeed, that sort of hard tradeoff is precisely the sort of decision that Congress committed to agency discretion and placed beyond the reach of judges.”

While the USDA had not denied that it was able to move money to different priorities after Congress had appropriated it, the government did not have to do so, Sauer said.

Allowing McConnell’s ruling to stand would invite a stampede to litigation, the government maintained.

“If allowed to stand, this decision will metastasize and sow further shutdown chaos,” Sauer said. “Every beneficiary of a federal program could run into court, point to an agency’s general discretion to prioritize funding, and claim that failing to prioritize their chosen program was arbitrary and capricious.”

Sauer also said McConnell read too much into Trump’s social media post this week that threatened to withhold SNAP funding for the duration of the shutdowns.

McConnell cited in his order the post, in which Trump said SNAP benefits would “be given only when the Radical Left Democrats open up government, which they can easily do, and not before!” showed the true purpose of the USDA move was political leverage.

“The court below had no basis to transfer of billions of dollars from school lunches to its preferred program based on its tendentious view of ‘the administration’s true motivations.’”

In a statement, Skye Perryman, the president and CEO of Democracy Forward, an advocacy group that is leading the litigation to force SNAP payments, said the group would continue to work to “secure benefits for the American people”

“The Trump-Vance administration continues to attempt — over and over — to take food out of the hands of families, seniors, workers, and children,” Perryman said. “And every time they tried, the courts told them what the law already makes clear: they cannot. American families should not be used as political props in a shutdown that this White House manufactured.”

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/11/1762570194872.png" alt="Supreme Court's Justice Jackson issued the emergency order -Photo Credit:Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States." />
 <figcaption>Supreme Court's Justice Jackson issued the emergency order -Photo Credit:Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States.</figcaption>
 </figure>By:<a href="https://stateline.org/author/jacob-fischler/">Jacob Fischler</a>The U.S. Supreme Court temporarily&nbsp;blocked Friday night a lower court’s order that the Trump administration pay for a full month of food benefits, hours after some states began loading nutrition assistance funds on payment cards held by the 42 million Americans who use the program.<a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/26221041-25a539-admin-stay/" target="_blank">In a two-page filing,</a>&nbsp;Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson&nbsp;accepted the government’s request to pause a Thursday order from Rhode Island Chief U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell while a lower appeals court hears the case.&nbsp;His order Thursday compelled the U.S. Department of Agriculture to transfer funds from other programs to fund the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, for November. The Trump administration had said the ongoing government shutdown meant it could not pay November SNAP benefits.“The applicants assert that, without intervention from this Court, they will have to ‘transfer an estimated $4 billion by tonight’ to fund SNAP benefits through November,” Jackson, who was appointed by President Joe Biden, wrote.&nbsp;A stay is needed to reach an “expeditious resolution,” she wrote.<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/11/1762569874331.png" alt="Page 1" />
 <figcaption>Page 1</figcaption>
 </figure><figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/11/1762569857484.png" alt="Page 2" />
 <figcaption>Page 2</figcaption>
 </figure>Jackson’s order froze SNAP payments to states that the USDA had&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/trump-administration-issues-november-snap-benefits-then-asks-supreme-court-intervene" target="_blank">appeared to authorize</a>&nbsp;earlier Friday before the administration appealed to the high court.It was unclear Friday night what effect that might have on individual recipients’ electronic benefit transfer, or EBT, cards. A press release earlier Friday from California Gov. Gavin Newsom said some Californians had begun to see full benefits on their cards, following an order from a lower court.<h2>High court challenge&nbsp;</h2>In a Friday evening brief to the Supreme Court that followed a day of conflicting messages from the administration, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer said the high court should step in to protect the executive branch’s power from what he characterized as unprecedented overreach by McConnell.By demanding that the USDA transfer money from a $23 billion fund for child nutrition programs to pay for November SNAP benefits, McConnell substituted his judgment for the agency’s, a violation of the constitutional separation-of-powers doctrine, Sauer argued.&nbsp;The department’s decision to pay for partial November benefits, by using the roughly $5 billion remaining in a contingency fund, rather than by paying about $9 billion for a full month of benefits, was its decision to make and not reviewable by courts, Sauer said.“USDA reasonably determined that the best course was to combine partial SNAP payments with stable funding for Child Nutrition Programs—versus jeopardize the latter to guarantee full payments with the former,” Sauer wrote. “The district court would have done otherwise. But it had no legal basis to ‘substitute its own policy judgment for that of the agency.’”<h2>Confusion in states&nbsp;</h2>The lower court order — as well a midday Friday letter from the USDA to state SNAP administrators — had also led to confusion among states who started to demand SNAP funds in a way Sauer compared to a bank run.Several states announced full funding would be available and began sending money to beneficiaries.Immediately after McConnell’s order was published, Wisconsin demanded “100% of SNAP benefits,” Sauer wrote. Even though the USDA system rejected the file, the private-sector processor of the payment “moved forward, resulting in Wisconsin currently overdrawing its letter of credit by $20 million,” he said.Kansas made a similar move. And some California SNAP users received their full benefits, according to Sauer’s brief.<h2>16 million children on SNAP</h2>McConnell on Thursday had ruled the department’s decision to withhold SNAP benefits arbitrary and capricious — the standard for judicial review of an executive branch action.&nbsp;The $23 billion fund could spare the $4 billion needed to make November SNAP benefits whole and still maintain its intended purpose well beyond the month, so there was no need to maintain that fund at that level, he wrote.Instead, the decision “predictably magnifies harm and undermines the very purpose of the program it administers,” McConnell wrote.While federal agencies are due discretion from courts, such a “poor” use of decision-making power must be remedied, he said.“Contrary to what the Defendants claim, 29 million children who participate in the Child Nutrition Program are not at risk of immediately going hungry in the event of a transfer,” he said. “Instead, SNAP recipients—16 million of whom are children—will go hungry if they do not receive their SNAP benefits this month.”<h2>‘Starve Peter to feed Paul’</h2>But Sauer responded that was not McConnell’s call to make.&nbsp;The trial judge’s ruling improperly assumed that Congress would eventually replenish the child nutrition program fund, but the USDA was within its right to take a more cautious approach toward protecting the child nutrition funding, said the solicitor general.“It obviously was not unlawful for the agency to see things differently—and refuse to starve Peter to feed Paul, by gambling school lunches tomorrow in exchange for more SNAP money today,” he wrote. “Indeed, that sort of hard tradeoff is precisely the sort of decision that Congress committed to agency discretion and placed beyond the reach of judges.”While the USDA had not denied that it was able to move money to different priorities after Congress had appropriated it, the government did not have to do so, Sauer said.Allowing McConnell’s ruling to stand would invite a stampede to litigation, the government maintained.“If allowed to stand, this decision will metastasize and sow further shutdown chaos,” Sauer said. “Every beneficiary of a federal program could run into court, point to an agency’s general discretion to prioritize funding, and claim that failing to prioritize their chosen program was arbitrary and capricious.”<h2>Trump social media post</h2>Sauer also said McConnell read too much into Trump’s social media post this week that threatened to withhold SNAP funding for the duration of the shutdowns.McConnell cited in his order the post, in which Trump said SNAP benefits would “be given only when the Radical Left Democrats open up government, which they can easily do, and not before!” showed the true purpose of the USDA move was political leverage.Sauer said that was improper.“The court below had no basis to transfer of billions of dollars from school lunches to its preferred program based on its tendentious view of ‘the administration’s true motivations.’”In a statement, Skye Perryman, the president and CEO of Democracy Forward, an advocacy group that is leading the litigation to force SNAP payments, said the group would continue to work to “secure benefits for the American people”“The Trump-Vance administration continues to attempt — over and over — to take food out of the hands of families, seniors, workers, and children,” Perryman said. “And every time they tried, the courts told them what the law already makes clear: they cannot. American families should not be used as political props in a shutdown that this White House manufactured.”

US Supreme Court temporarily blocks November SNAP payments

November 7, 2025 (Bellevue, Neb.)&nbsp;&nbsp;— Investigators with the Nebraska State Patrol have arrested a former Bellevue Police Department officer as part of a child enticement investigation.

The investigation began in July, when the Nebraska Attorney General’s Office requested NSP investigate a report regarding a Bellevue officer, identified as Ryan Agustin. During the investigation, the Nebraska State Patrol found Agustin to be in possession of manufactured child sexual abuse material.

Friday afternoon, NSP arrested Agustin, 38, of Bellevue, for manufacturing child sexual abuse material. He was lodged in Sarpy County Jail. The investigation remains ongoing.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2019/8/1565129733856.png" alt=" " />
 <figcaption> </figcaption>
 </figure>November 7, 2025 (Bellevue, Neb.)&nbsp;&nbsp;— Investigators with the Nebraska State Patrol have arrested a former Bellevue Police Department officer as part of a child enticement investigation.The investigation began in July, when the Nebraska Attorney General’s Office requested NSP investigate a report regarding a Bellevue officer, identified as Ryan Agustin. During the investigation, the Nebraska State Patrol found Agustin to be in possession of manufactured child sexual abuse material.Friday afternoon, NSP arrested Agustin, 38, of Bellevue, for manufacturing child sexual abuse material. He was lodged in Sarpy County Jail. The investigation remains ongoing.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;

Former Bellevue Officer Arrested in Child Sexual Abuse Material Investigation

By:<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/jacob-fischler/">Jacob Fischler</a>

The U.S. Department of Agriculture told states Friday it was releasing full November funding for the nation’s major food assistance program that helps 42 million people afford groceries, complying with a federal court order issued Thursday.

Payments would be sent to states Friday, the department’s Food and Nutrition Service said in a letter to state directors of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, which is funded by the federal government and administered by the states. Patrick A. Penn, the deputy under secretary for food, nutrition and consumer services, wrote the two-paragraph&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/%2520https%253a//www.documentcloud.org/documents/26220869-snap-november-2025-benefit-guidance-update/" target="_blank">letter.</a>

“Later today, FNS will complete the processes necessary to make funds available to support your subsequent transmittal of full issuance files to your EBT processor,” Penn wrote. “We will keep you as up to date as possible on any future developments and appreciate your continued partnership to serve program beneficiaries across the country.”

The move abandons an appeal President Donald Trump’s administration made following&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/trump-administration-ordered-pay-full-9b-november-snap-benefits-amid-shutdown" target="_blank">Thursday’s order</a>&nbsp;from Chief U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell Jr. of Rhode Island. The&nbsp;<a href="https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71886023/00108363689/rhode-island-state-council-of-churches-v-rollins/" target="_blank">appeal</a>&nbsp;said the government shutdown, and the resulting lack of funding for SNAP, was Congress’ fault and that the department could not be compelled to transfer other funds to pay for SNAP benefits.

The shutdown, which started when Congress failed to pass annual laws by Oct. 1, left SNAP without any appropriated funding for November and beyond. The administration&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/usda-wont-shuffle-funds-extend-snap-during-shutdown-about-face-earlier-plan" target="_blank">reversed its own guidance</a>&nbsp;and declined to use a contingency fund and other accounts within the USDA held more than enough to cover some benefits.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/10/1761944916334.png" alt="Post photo" />
 <figcaption>Post photo</figcaption>
 </figure>By:<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/jacob-fischler/">Jacob Fischler</a>The U.S. Department of Agriculture told states Friday it was releasing full November funding for the nation’s major food assistance program that helps 42 million people afford groceries, complying with a federal court order issued Thursday.Payments would be sent to states Friday, the department’s Food and Nutrition Service said in a letter to state directors of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, which is funded by the federal government and administered by the states. Patrick A. Penn, the deputy under secretary for food, nutrition and consumer services, wrote the two-paragraph&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/%2520https%253a//www.documentcloud.org/documents/26220869-snap-november-2025-benefit-guidance-update/" target="_blank">letter.</a>“Later today, FNS will complete the processes necessary to make funds available to support your subsequent transmittal of full issuance files to your EBT processor,” Penn wrote. “We will keep you as up to date as possible on any future developments and appreciate your continued partnership to serve program beneficiaries across the country.”The move abandons an appeal President Donald Trump’s administration made following&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/trump-administration-ordered-pay-full-9b-november-snap-benefits-amid-shutdown" target="_blank">Thursday’s order</a>&nbsp;from Chief U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell Jr. of Rhode Island. The&nbsp;<a href="https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71886023/00108363689/rhode-island-state-council-of-churches-v-rollins/" target="_blank">appeal</a>&nbsp;said the government shutdown, and the resulting lack of funding for SNAP, was Congress’ fault and that the department could not be compelled to transfer other funds to pay for SNAP benefits.The shutdown, which started when Congress failed to pass annual laws by Oct. 1, left SNAP without any appropriated funding for November and beyond. The administration&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/usda-wont-shuffle-funds-extend-snap-during-shutdown-about-face-earlier-plan" target="_blank">reversed its own guidance</a>&nbsp;and declined to use a contingency fund and other accounts within the USDA held more than enough to cover some benefits.

Full November SNAP benefits to be issued by Trump administration despite shutdown

By Ashley Murray | Nebraska Examiner

WASHINGTON — A vote to stop President Donald Trump’s deadly strikes on alleged drug-running boats off the coast of Venezuela failed Thursday in the U.S. Senate, nearly mirroring the outcome of a similar war powers vote last month.&nbsp;

Senate Republicans Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Rand Paul of Kentucky again joined Democrats in&nbsp;<a href="https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1191/vote_119_1_00608.htm" target="_blank">a 49-51 vote</a>, just shy of the simple majority needed to advance legislation aimed at halting Trump’s escalating campaign on what his administration describes as “narco-terrorists.”

The&nbsp;<a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-joint-resolution/90/cosponsors?s=1&amp;r=1&amp;q=%7B%22search%22%3A%22S.J.res+90%22%7D" target="_blank">joint resolution</a>, brought to the floor by Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., directs the “removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities within or against Venezuela that have not been authorized by Congress.”

Paul and Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., initially cosponsored the bill, and a dozen more Democratic senators and one independent signed on.&nbsp;

Schiff’s similar measure&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/us-senate-rejects-restriction-military-strikes-vessels-caribbean" target="_blank">failed</a>&nbsp;48-51 in early October.

Kaine forced Thursday’s vote under the War Powers Resolution, a Vietnam War-era&nbsp;<a href="https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R47603" target="_blank">statute</a>&nbsp;that gives Congress a check on the president’s use of the military abroad.&nbsp;

The death toll from U.S. military strikes has risen to 67 since September, according to&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/02/politics/timeline-us-strikes-caribbean-pacific-vis" target="_blank">CNN</a>. Notably, the Trump administration is&nbsp;<a href="https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2025/11/04/uss-gerald-r-ford-heads-to-caribbean-to-support-anti-narcotics-effort/" target="_blank">relocating</a>&nbsp;the country’s most advanced aircraft carrier from the Mediterranean to the Caribbean, joining other Navy resources currently amassed there.&nbsp;

On Oct. 16, Trump&nbsp;<a href="https://www.npr.org/2025/10/16/g-s1-93677/trump-confirms-cia-operations-venezuela" target="_blank">publicly confirmed</a>&nbsp;a New York Times report that he had authorized covert CIA operations in Venezuela and told reporters he was “looking at land” for possible further strikes.&nbsp;&nbsp;

“All of this together with the increased pace of strikes in the Caribbean and the Pacific suggest that we are on the verge of something that should not happen without a debate and vote in Congress before the American people,” Kaine said on the floor before the vote.&nbsp;

Kaine and Schiff told reporters Thursday they viewed the White House Office of Legal Counsel opinion authorizing the fatal strike in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean near Venezuela.&nbsp;

The document, which senators are allowed to read in a classified setting, “makes no effort to claim that there’s a legal rationale for invading a sovereign nation, no effort to claim that it’s about Venezuela, or could be used with respect to Venezuela or any country,” Kaine said.

Schiff characterized the opinion as “broad enough to authorize just about anything.”

Kaine urged Senate Republicans, who received a brief and review of the document earlier this week, to introduce and debate legislation authorizing the administration to continue its military force in the region.

“Anybody in Congress who thinks we ought to be bombing ships in the Caribbean and Pacific, introduce an AUMF (Authorization for Use of Military Force) and have a debate and vote on it,” Kaine said, adding “but don’t just abdicate this power.”&nbsp;

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth&nbsp;<a href="https://x.com/SecWar/status/1985863010376642677" target="_blank">posted</a>&nbsp;a grainy video online Tuesday of a vessel in flames after a strike, and said the United States targeted the boat in the Eastern Pacific that had been operated by “a Designated Terrorist Organization.”&nbsp;

“Intelligence confirmed that the vessel was involved in illicit narcotics smuggling, transiting along a known narco-trafficking route, and carrying narcotics. The strike was conducted in international waters in the Eastern Pacific.”

“No U.S. forces were harmed in the strike, and two male narco-terrorists — who were aboard the vessel — were killed,” Hegseth wrote on social media.

It’s&nbsp;<a href="https://media.defense.gov/2023/Jul/31/2003271432/-1/-1/0/DOD-LAW-OF-WAR-MANUAL-JUNE-2015-UPDATED-JULY%202023.PDF" target="_blank">unlawful</a>&nbsp;for the U.S. military to intentionally&nbsp;<a href="https://media.defense.gov/2023/Jul/31/2003271432/-1/-1/0/DOD-LAW-OF-WAR-MANUAL-JUNE-2015-UPDATED-JULY%202023.PDF" target="_blank">kill</a>&nbsp;civilians who are not actively taking part in hostilities against the U.S.&nbsp;

Ahead of Thursday’s vote, Sen. James Risch, R-Idaho, defended the administration’s “decisive actions to protect thousands of Americans from lethal narcotics.”&nbsp;

“Some Democrat members and members of the media claim that President Trump does not have authority to conduct these strikes. I’ll tell you right now, that is plain wrong,” said Risch, chair of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.

Risch said he and fellow Senate Republicans have sat through “hours of briefings and analysis by government legal departments and attorneys” regarding the strikes.

Schiff and Kaine told reporters their access to information and briefings has been more limited.

On the Senate floor ahead of the vote, Paul compared the strikes and buildup in the Caribbean to the U.S. military’s “misguided” intervention in the Middle East.

“We owe it to our service members to only send them into harm’s way when vital American interests are at stake. Who is in charge of Venezuela does not constitute such an interest,” Paul said, alleging the strikes are about regime change in the South American nation ruled by dictator Nicolás Maduro.

&nbsp; “We overthrew Sadam Hussein thinking Iraq would be transformed into this great Jeffersonian democracy. Instead what occurred was an insurgency that led to some of the most brutal sectarian violence in living memory,” Paul said.

Congress passed the War Powers Resolution in 1973 after the Nixon administration secretly bombed Vietnam and Cambodia,&nbsp;<a href="https://gsp.yale.edu/sites/default/files/walrus_cambodiabombing_oct06.pdf" target="_blank">killing hundreds of thousands of people.</a>&nbsp;

By Ashley Murray | Nebraska Examiner<figure>
 <img src="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/timkainenov62025-1536x1153.jpg" alt="&nbsp;Sen. Adam Schiff of California, left, and Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia, both Democrats, talk to reporters at the U.S. Capitol on Nov. 6, 2025. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)" />
 <figcaption>&nbsp;Sen. Adam Schiff of California, left, and Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia, both Democrats, talk to reporters at the U.S. Capitol on Nov. 6, 2025. (Photo by Ashley Murray/States Newsroom)</figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON — A vote to stop President Donald Trump’s deadly strikes on alleged drug-running boats off the coast of Venezuela failed Thursday in the U.S. Senate, nearly mirroring the outcome of a similar war powers vote last month.&nbsp;Senate Republicans Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Rand Paul of Kentucky again joined Democrats in&nbsp;<a href="https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1191/vote_119_1_00608.htm" target="_blank">a 49-51 vote</a>, just shy of the simple majority needed to advance legislation aimed at halting Trump’s escalating campaign on what his administration describes as “narco-terrorists.”The&nbsp;<a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-joint-resolution/90/cosponsors?s=1&amp;r=1&amp;q=%7B%22search%22%3A%22S.J.res+90%22%7D" target="_blank">joint resolution</a>, brought to the floor by Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., directs the “removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities within or against Venezuela that have not been authorized by Congress.”Paul and Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., initially cosponsored the bill, and a dozen more Democratic senators and one independent signed on.&nbsp;Schiff’s similar measure&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/us-senate-rejects-restriction-military-strikes-vessels-caribbean" target="_blank">failed</a>&nbsp;48-51 in early October.Kaine forced Thursday’s vote under the War Powers Resolution, a Vietnam War-era&nbsp;<a href="https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R47603" target="_blank">statute</a>&nbsp;that gives Congress a check on the president’s use of the military abroad.&nbsp;The death toll from U.S. military strikes has risen to 67 since September, according to&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/02/politics/timeline-us-strikes-caribbean-pacific-vis" target="_blank">CNN</a>. Notably, the Trump administration is&nbsp;<a href="https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2025/11/04/uss-gerald-r-ford-heads-to-caribbean-to-support-anti-narcotics-effort/" target="_blank">relocating</a>&nbsp;the country’s most advanced aircraft carrier from the Mediterranean to the Caribbean, joining other Navy resources currently amassed there.&nbsp;On Oct. 16, Trump&nbsp;<a href="https://www.npr.org/2025/10/16/g-s1-93677/trump-confirms-cia-operations-venezuela" target="_blank">publicly confirmed</a>&nbsp;a New York Times report that he had authorized covert CIA operations in Venezuela and told reporters he was “looking at land” for possible further strikes.&nbsp;&nbsp;<h2>Kaine, Schiff push for war powers vote</h2>“All of this together with the increased pace of strikes in the Caribbean and the Pacific suggest that we are on the verge of something that should not happen without a debate and vote in Congress before the American people,” Kaine said on the floor before the vote.&nbsp;Kaine and Schiff told reporters Thursday they viewed the White House Office of Legal Counsel opinion authorizing the fatal strike in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean near Venezuela.&nbsp;The document, which senators are allowed to read in a classified setting, “makes no effort to claim that there’s a legal rationale for invading a sovereign nation, no effort to claim that it’s about Venezuela, or could be used with respect to Venezuela or any country,” Kaine said.Schiff characterized the opinion as “broad enough to authorize just about anything.”Kaine urged Senate Republicans, who received a brief and review of the document earlier this week, to introduce and debate legislation authorizing the administration to continue its military force in the region.“Anybody in Congress who thinks we ought to be bombing ships in the Caribbean and Pacific, introduce an AUMF (Authorization for Use of Military Force) and have a debate and vote on it,” Kaine said, adding “but don’t just abdicate this power.”&nbsp;<h2>Hegseth posts video</h2>Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth&nbsp;<a href="https://x.com/SecWar/status/1985863010376642677" target="_blank">posted</a>&nbsp;a grainy video online Tuesday of a vessel in flames after a strike, and said the United States targeted the boat in the Eastern Pacific that had been operated by “a Designated Terrorist Organization.”&nbsp;“Intelligence confirmed that the vessel was involved in illicit narcotics smuggling, transiting along a known narco-trafficking route, and carrying narcotics. The strike was conducted in international waters in the Eastern Pacific.”“No U.S. forces were harmed in the strike, and two male narco-terrorists — who were aboard the vessel — were killed,” Hegseth wrote on social media.It’s&nbsp;<a href="https://media.defense.gov/2023/Jul/31/2003271432/-1/-1/0/DOD-LAW-OF-WAR-MANUAL-JUNE-2015-UPDATED-JULY%202023.PDF" target="_blank">unlawful</a>&nbsp;for the U.S. military to intentionally&nbsp;<a href="https://media.defense.gov/2023/Jul/31/2003271432/-1/-1/0/DOD-LAW-OF-WAR-MANUAL-JUNE-2015-UPDATED-JULY%202023.PDF" target="_blank">kill</a>&nbsp;civilians who are not actively taking part in hostilities against the U.S.&nbsp;Ahead of Thursday’s vote, Sen. James Risch, R-Idaho, defended the administration’s “decisive actions to protect thousands of Americans from lethal narcotics.”&nbsp;“Some Democrat members and members of the media claim that President Trump does not have authority to conduct these strikes. I’ll tell you right now, that is plain wrong,” said Risch, chair of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.Risch said he and fellow Senate Republicans have sat through “hours of briefings and analysis by government legal departments and attorneys” regarding the strikes.Schiff and Kaine told reporters their access to information and briefings has been more limited.<h2>Paul criticizes Trump moves</h2>On the Senate floor ahead of the vote, Paul compared the strikes and buildup in the Caribbean to the U.S. military’s “misguided” intervention in the Middle East.“We owe it to our service members to only send them into harm’s way when vital American interests are at stake. Who is in charge of Venezuela does not constitute such an interest,” Paul said, alleging the strikes are about regime change in the South American nation ruled by dictator Nicolás Maduro.&nbsp; “We overthrew Sadam Hussein thinking Iraq would be transformed into this great Jeffersonian democracy. Instead what occurred was an insurgency that led to some of the most brutal sectarian violence in living memory,” Paul said.Congress passed the War Powers Resolution in 1973 after the Nixon administration secretly bombed Vietnam and Cambodia,&nbsp;<a href="https://gsp.yale.edu/sites/default/files/walrus_cambodiabombing_oct06.pdf" target="_blank">killing hundreds of thousands of people.</a>&nbsp;

US Senate fails to pass war powers resolution blocking Trump attacks on Venezuela

Omaha, NE – Investigators with the Omaha Police Department’s Special Investigations Section, in collaboration with the Douglas County Attorney’s Office and Homeland Security, have concluded a months-long investigation resulting in the arrests of five individuals on multiple felony charges related to sex trafficking Oct. 30, 2025.

Omaha police emphasized that these arrests represent the culmination of months of diligent investigative work aimed at dismantling sex trafficking operations in the city.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/11/1762533948241.png" alt="Photos: Omaha Police Department" />
 <figcaption>Photos: Omaha Police Department</figcaption>
 </figure>Omaha, NE – Investigators with the Omaha Police Department’s Special Investigations Section, in collaboration with the Douglas County Attorney’s Office and Homeland Security, have concluded a months-long investigation resulting in the arrests of five individuals on multiple felony charges related to sex trafficking Oct. 30, 2025.The arrests are as follows:<ul>
 <li>Thomas Falcon, 62: Possession of child sexual abuse material, pandering, conspiracy to commit sex trafficking, sex trafficking, sex trafficking of a minor, distribution of child sexual abuse material, and keeping a place of prostitution.
</li><li>Amy Hicks, 39: Income tax evasion, possession of child sexual abuse material, pandering, conspiracy to commit sex trafficking, distribution of child sexual abuse material, and keeping a place of prostitution.
</li><li>Douglas Johnson, 54: Possession of child sexual abuse material, pandering, and conspiracy to commit sex trafficking.
</li><li>Scott Nelson, 52: Possession of child sexual abuse material, pandering, conspiracy to commit sex trafficking, and manufacturing child sexual abuse material.
</li><li>Steven Harper, 56: Keeping a place of prostitution and aiding and abetting pandering.</li>
 </ul>Latest Case Updates<ul>
 <li>Amy Hicks, a city of Omaha finance employee, has waived her preliminary hearing and is now bound over for trial in district court. Prosecutors described Hicks as the “lynchpin” of the operation, alleging she recruited dozens of people through commercial sex apps between 2022 and 2024.
</li><li>Hicks remains in custody at the Douglas County Jail on a $10 million bond.
</li><li>The other four defendants — Falcon, Johnson, Nelson, and Harper — have preliminary hearings scheduled for December 10, when the state must demonstrate probable cause to move the felony charges forward.
</li><li>Court documents indicate two victims have come forward so far, with authorities noting there could be additional victims. Some arrest affidavits in the case remain sealed due to the sensitive nature of the investigation.</li>
 </ul>Omaha police emphasized that these arrests represent the culmination of months of diligent investigative work aimed at dismantling sex trafficking operations in the city.

Five Arrested in Omaha Sex Trafficking Investigation

By:<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/author/shauneen-miranda/">Shauneen Miranda</a>

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday allowed President Donald Trump’s administration to continue carrying out, for now, its policy requiring that passports only list a person’s sex assigned at birth.

The nation’s highest court paused a lower court order that temporarily barred the administration from enforcing the policy, codified in an executive order Trump signed in January.&nbsp;

The&nbsp;<a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/defending-women-from-gender-ideology-extremism-and-restoring-biological-truth-to-the-federal-government/" target="_blank">executive order</a>&nbsp;made it the “policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female” and called on the State Department to “implement changes to require that government-issued identification documents, including passports, visas, and Global Entry cards, accurately reflect the holder’s sex.”&nbsp;

Under then-President Joe Biden, the State Department&nbsp;<a href="https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/03/31/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-advances-equality-and-visibility-for-transgender-americans/" target="_blank">allowed</a>&nbsp;people to “select an ‘X’ as their gender marker on their U.S. passport application.”

In&nbsp;<a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/26219531-scotus-passports-11625/" target="_blank">the unsigned court order</a>, the majority noted that “displaying passport holders’ sex at birth no more offends equal protection principles than displaying their country of birth — in both cases, the Government is merely attesting to a historical fact without subjecting anyone to differential treatment.”&nbsp;&nbsp;

Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, indicating a 6-3 decision.

Jackson, who authored the dissent, wrote that the court “fails to spill any ink considering the plaintiffs, opting instead to intervene in the Government’s favor without equitable justification, and in a manner that permits harm to be inflicted on the most vulnerable party.”&nbsp;

“This Court has once again paved the way for the immediate infliction of injury without adequate (or, really, any) justification,” she wrote. “Because I cannot acquiesce to this pointless but painful perversion of our equitable discretion, I respectfully dissent.”&nbsp;

In February, the American Civil Liberties Union&nbsp;<a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.280559/gov.uscourts.mad.280559.1.0_2.pdf" target="_blank">filed a lawsuit</a>&nbsp;against the administration on behalf of seven transgender and nonbinary people over the suspension of the Biden-era policy.

A federal judge in Massachusetts in June temporarily blocked the administration from enforcing the policy. The judge had issued an earlier preliminary injunction in April that applied to six of the case’s plaintiffs.&nbsp;

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit kept in place the district court’s order in September, prompting the administration to ask the Supreme Court to intervene.&nbsp;&nbsp;

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/7/1627262146028.jpeg" alt="Image Pixaby" />
 <figcaption>Image Pixaby</figcaption>
 </figure>By:<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/author/shauneen-miranda/">Shauneen Miranda</a>WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday allowed President Donald Trump’s administration to continue carrying out, for now, its policy requiring that passports only list a person’s sex assigned at birth.The nation’s highest court paused a lower court order that temporarily barred the administration from enforcing the policy, codified in an executive order Trump signed in January.&nbsp;The&nbsp;<a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/defending-women-from-gender-ideology-extremism-and-restoring-biological-truth-to-the-federal-government/" target="_blank">executive order</a>&nbsp;made it the “policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female” and called on the State Department to “implement changes to require that government-issued identification documents, including passports, visas, and Global Entry cards, accurately reflect the holder’s sex.”&nbsp;Under then-President Joe Biden, the State Department&nbsp;<a href="https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/03/31/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-advances-equality-and-visibility-for-transgender-americans/" target="_blank">allowed</a>&nbsp;people to “select an ‘X’ as their gender marker on their U.S. passport application.”In&nbsp;<a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/26219531-scotus-passports-11625/" target="_blank">the unsigned court order</a>, the majority noted that “displaying passport holders’ sex at birth no more offends equal protection principles than displaying their country of birth — in both cases, the Government is merely attesting to a historical fact without subjecting anyone to differential treatment.”&nbsp;&nbsp;Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, indicating a 6-3 decision.Jackson, who authored the dissent, wrote that the court “fails to spill any ink considering the plaintiffs, opting instead to intervene in the Government’s favor without equitable justification, and in a manner that permits harm to be inflicted on the most vulnerable party.”&nbsp;“This Court has once again paved the way for the immediate infliction of injury without adequate (or, really, any) justification,” she wrote. “Because I cannot acquiesce to this pointless but painful perversion of our equitable discretion, I respectfully dissent.”&nbsp;In February, the American Civil Liberties Union&nbsp;<a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.280559/gov.uscourts.mad.280559.1.0_2.pdf" target="_blank">filed a lawsuit</a>&nbsp;against the administration on behalf of seven transgender and nonbinary people over the suspension of the Biden-era policy.A federal judge in Massachusetts in June temporarily blocked the administration from enforcing the policy. The judge had issued an earlier preliminary injunction in April that applied to six of the case’s plaintiffs.&nbsp;The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit kept in place the district court’s order in September, prompting the administration to ask the Supreme Court to intervene.&nbsp;&nbsp;

Supreme Court OKs for now Trump passport policy that targets trans people

A federal judge on Thursday ordered the Trump administration to pay roughly $9 billion for November SNAP benefits by Friday. Vice President&nbsp; JD Vance criticized the ruling.

(click below to listen to Vice President Vance's comments)

A federal judge on Thursday ordered the Trump administration to pay roughly $9 billion for November SNAP benefits by Friday. Vice President&nbsp; JD Vance criticized the ruling.(click below to listen to Vice President Vance's comments)<div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560">.<a href="https://twitter.com/VP?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@VP</a>: &quot;It’s an absurd ruling because you have a federal judge effectively telling us what we have to do in the midst of a Democrat government shutdown... What we’d like to do is for the Democrats to open up the government — then we can fund SNAP, and we can also do a lot of other… <a href="https://t.co/TWSpzllzKt">pic.twitter.com/TWSpzllzKt</a>&mdash; Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) <a href="https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/1986601094550602090?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 7, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>

🎥Vice President critical of judge's ruling to fully fund SNAP

WASHINGTON, D.C. —&nbsp;U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean P. Duffy and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Administrator Bryan Bedford&nbsp; outlined the proactive actions the FAA will take to maintain the highest standards of safety in the national airspace system. This includes achieving a temporary 10 percent reduction in flights at 40 high traffic airports across the country. &nbsp;

Since the beginning of the shutdown, controllers have been working without pay, and staffing triggers at air traffic facilities across the country have been increasing. This has resulted in increased reports of strain on the system from both pilots and air traffic controllers. This past weekend, there were 2,740 delays at various airports.  &nbsp;

“My department has many responsibilities, but our number one job is safety. This isn’t about politics – it’s about assessing the data and alleviating building risk in the system as controllers continue to work without pay,”&nbsp;said&nbsp;U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean P. Duffy.&nbsp;“It’s safe to fly today, and it will continue to be safe to fly next week because of the proactive actions we are taking.”&nbsp;

“We are seeing signs of stress in the system, so we are proactively reducing the number of flights to make sure the American people continue to fly safely,”&nbsp;said&nbsp;Federal Aviation Administrator Bryan Bedford.&nbsp;“The FAA will continue to closely monitor operations, and we will not hesitate to take further action to make sure air travel remains safe.”  &nbsp;

The full emergency order can be read&nbsp;<a href="https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/FAA-Emergency-Order-11-6-25.pdf">HERE</a>.&nbsp;

A 4 percent reduction in operations will take effect Friday, November 7, ramping up to 6 percent by November 11, 8 percent by November 13, and 10 percent by November 14.&nbsp;

These actions were directly informed by the FAA’s review of aviation safety data, including voluntary, confidential safety reports that pilots and air traffic controllers file. The data indicates increased stress on the system, which increases risk. &nbsp;&nbsp;

Airlines will be required to issue full refunds. They will not be required to cover secondary costs. This is the normal procedure when a delay or cancellation is not at the fault of the carrier.&nbsp;

The order does not require a reduction in international flights. Carriers may use their own discretion to decide which flights are canceled to reach the order’s goal.&nbsp;

Decisions to increase or decrease these flight reductions will be informed by safety data. &nbsp;

The 40 affected high impact airports include: &nbsp;

ANC –&nbsp;Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport&nbsp;

ATL –&nbsp;Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport&nbsp;

BOS –&nbsp;Boston Logan International Airport&nbsp;

BWI –&nbsp;Baltimore/Washington International Airport&nbsp;

CLT –&nbsp;Charlotte Douglas International Airport&nbsp;

CVG –&nbsp;Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport&nbsp;

DAL –&nbsp;Dallas Love Field&nbsp;DCA –&nbsp;Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport&nbsp;

DEN –&nbsp;Denver International Airport&nbsp;

DFW –&nbsp;Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport&nbsp;

DTW –&nbsp;Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport&nbsp;EWR –&nbsp;Newark Liberty International Airport&nbsp;

FLL –&nbsp;Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood International Airport&nbsp;

HNL –&nbsp;Honolulu International Airport&nbsp;

HOU –&nbsp;William P. Hobby Airport&nbsp;

IAD –&nbsp;Washington Dulles International Airport

&nbsp;IAH –&nbsp;George Bush Houston Intercontinental Airport&nbsp;

IND –&nbsp;Indianapolis International Airport&nbsp;

JFK –&nbsp;New York John F. Kennedy International Airport&nbsp;

LAS –&nbsp;Las Vegas McCarran International Airport&nbsp;

LAX –&nbsp;Los Angeles International Airport&nbsp;

LGA –&nbsp;New York LaGuardia Airport&nbsp;

MCO –&nbsp;Orlando International Airport&nbsp;

MDW –&nbsp;Chicago Midway International Airport&nbsp;

MEM –&nbsp;Memphis International Airport&nbsp;

MIA –&nbsp;Miami International Airport&nbsp;

MSP –&nbsp;Minneapolis–St. Paul International Airport&nbsp;

OAK –&nbsp;Oakland International Airport&nbsp;

ONT –&nbsp;Ontario International Airport&nbsp;

ORD –&nbsp;Chicago O’Hare International Airport&nbsp;

PDX –&nbsp;Portland International Airport

&nbsp;PHL –&nbsp;Philadelphia International Airport&nbsp;

PHX –&nbsp;Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport&nbsp;

SAN –&nbsp;San Diego International Airport&nbsp;

SDF –&nbsp;Louisville International Airport&nbsp;

SEA –&nbsp;Seattle–Tacoma International Airport&nbsp;

SFO –&nbsp;San Francisco International Airport&nbsp;

SLC –&nbsp;Salt Lake City International Airport&nbsp;

TEB –&nbsp;Teterboro Airport&nbsp;TPA –&nbsp;Tampa International Airport

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/11/1762445699793.png" alt="Photo Frontier Airlines" />
 <figcaption>Photo Frontier Airlines</figcaption>
 </figure><div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">.<a href="https://twitter.com/USDOT?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@USDOT</a> has many responsibilities, but our number one job is safety. This isn’t about politics – it’s about assessing the data and alleviating building risk in the system as controllers continue working without pay. It’s safe to fly today, tomorrow, and the day after because… <a href="https://t.co/YRrq5sdy4T">pic.twitter.com/YRrq5sdy4T</a>&mdash; Secretary Sean Duffy (@SecDuffy) <a href="https://twitter.com/SecDuffy/status/1986598889005477938?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 7, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>WASHINGTON, D.C. —&nbsp;U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean P. Duffy and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Administrator Bryan Bedford&nbsp; outlined the proactive actions the FAA will take to maintain the highest standards of safety in the national airspace system. This includes achieving a temporary 10 percent reduction in flights at 40 high traffic airports across the country. &nbsp;Since the beginning of the shutdown, controllers have been working without pay, and staffing triggers at air traffic facilities across the country have been increasing. This has resulted in increased reports of strain on the system from both pilots and air traffic controllers. This past weekend, there were 2,740 delays at various airports.  &nbsp;“My department has many responsibilities, but our number one job is safety. This isn’t about politics – it’s about assessing the data and alleviating building risk in the system as controllers continue to work without pay,”&nbsp;said&nbsp;U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean P. Duffy.&nbsp;“It’s safe to fly today, and it will continue to be safe to fly next week because of the proactive actions we are taking.”&nbsp;“We are seeing signs of stress in the system, so we are proactively reducing the number of flights to make sure the American people continue to fly safely,”&nbsp;said&nbsp;Federal Aviation Administrator Bryan Bedford.&nbsp;“The FAA will continue to closely monitor operations, and we will not hesitate to take further action to make sure air travel remains safe.”  &nbsp;The full emergency order can be read&nbsp;<a href="https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/FAA-Emergency-Order-11-6-25.pdf">HERE</a>.&nbsp;Summary of Actions:A 4 percent reduction in operations will take effect Friday, November 7, ramping up to 6 percent by November 11, 8 percent by November 13, and 10 percent by November 14.&nbsp;The FAA will also:<ul>
 <li>Prohibit some visual flight rule approaches (VFR) at facilities with staffing triggers</li><li>Limit commercial space launches to non-peak hours so they are prohibited between 11:01 a.m. and 2:59 p.m. UTC</li><li>Prohibit parachute operations and photo missions near facilities with a staffing trigger. &nbsp;</li>
 </ul>These actions were directly informed by the FAA’s review of aviation safety data, including voluntary, confidential safety reports that pilots and air traffic controllers file. The data indicates increased stress on the system, which increases risk. &nbsp;&nbsp;Additional Information:Airlines will be required to issue full refunds. They will not be required to cover secondary costs. This is the normal procedure when a delay or cancellation is not at the fault of the carrier.&nbsp;The order does not require a reduction in international flights. Carriers may use their own discretion to decide which flights are canceled to reach the order’s goal.&nbsp;Decisions to increase or decrease these flight reductions will be informed by safety data. &nbsp;The 40 affected high impact airports include: &nbsp;ANC –&nbsp;Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport&nbsp;ATL –&nbsp;Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport&nbsp;BOS –&nbsp;Boston Logan International Airport&nbsp;BWI –&nbsp;Baltimore/Washington International Airport&nbsp;CLT –&nbsp;Charlotte Douglas International Airport&nbsp;CVG –&nbsp;Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport&nbsp;DAL –&nbsp;Dallas Love Field&nbsp;DCA –&nbsp;Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport&nbsp;DEN –&nbsp;Denver International Airport&nbsp;DFW –&nbsp;Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport&nbsp;DTW –&nbsp;Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport&nbsp;EWR –&nbsp;Newark Liberty International Airport&nbsp;FLL –&nbsp;Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood International Airport&nbsp;HNL –&nbsp;Honolulu International Airport&nbsp;HOU –&nbsp;William P. Hobby Airport&nbsp;IAD –&nbsp;Washington Dulles International Airport&nbsp;IAH –&nbsp;George Bush Houston Intercontinental Airport&nbsp;IND –&nbsp;Indianapolis International Airport&nbsp;JFK –&nbsp;New York John F. Kennedy International Airport&nbsp;LAS –&nbsp;Las Vegas McCarran International Airport&nbsp;LAX –&nbsp;Los Angeles International Airport&nbsp;LGA –&nbsp;New York LaGuardia Airport&nbsp;MCO –&nbsp;Orlando International Airport&nbsp;MDW –&nbsp;Chicago Midway International Airport&nbsp;MEM –&nbsp;Memphis International Airport&nbsp;MIA –&nbsp;Miami International Airport&nbsp;MSP –&nbsp;Minneapolis–St. Paul International Airport&nbsp;OAK –&nbsp;Oakland International Airport&nbsp;ONT –&nbsp;Ontario International Airport&nbsp;ORD –&nbsp;Chicago O’Hare International Airport&nbsp;PDX –&nbsp;Portland International Airport&nbsp;PHL –&nbsp;Philadelphia International Airport&nbsp;PHX –&nbsp;Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport&nbsp;SAN –&nbsp;San Diego International Airport&nbsp;SDF –&nbsp;Louisville International Airport&nbsp;SEA –&nbsp;Seattle–Tacoma International Airport&nbsp;SFO –&nbsp;San Francisco International Airport&nbsp;SLC –&nbsp;Salt Lake City International Airport&nbsp;TEB –&nbsp;Teterboro Airport&nbsp;TPA –&nbsp;Tampa International Airport

FAA's order to cut flights nationwide due to gov't shutdown is in effect

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth reported another deadly strike on an alleged drug boat in the Caribbean.

Hegseth wrote on social media, "As we’ve said before, vessel strikes on narco-terrorists will continue until their the poisoning of the American people stops."

":On Thursday. at the direction of President Trump, the Department of War carried out a lethal kinetic strike on a vessel operated by a Designated Terrorist Organization."

"The vessel was trafficking narcotics in the Caribbean and was struck in international waters. No U.S. forces were harmed in the strike, and three male narco-terrorists — who were aboard the vessel — were killed."

"To all narco-terrorists who threaten our homeland: if you want to stay alive, stop trafficking drugs. If you keep trafficking deadly drugs—we will kill you."

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth reported another deadly strike on an alleged drug boat in the Caribbean.Hegseth wrote on social media, "As we’ve said before, vessel strikes on narco-terrorists will continue until their the poisoning of the American people stops."<div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560">As we’ve said before, vessel strikes on narco-terrorists will continue until their the poisoning of the American people stops. Today, at the direction of President Trump, the Department of War carried out a lethal kinetic strike on a vessel operated by a Designated Terrorist… <a href="https://t.co/gQF9LpSjqD">pic.twitter.com/gQF9LpSjqD</a>&mdash; Secretary of War Pete Hegseth (@SecWar) <a href="https://twitter.com/SecWar/status/1986631797547921741?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 7, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>":On Thursday. at the direction of President Trump, the Department of War carried out a lethal kinetic strike on a vessel operated by a Designated Terrorist Organization.""The vessel was trafficking narcotics in the Caribbean and was struck in international waters. No U.S. forces were harmed in the strike, and three male narco-terrorists — who were aboard the vessel — were killed.""To all narco-terrorists who threaten our homeland: if you want to stay alive, stop trafficking drugs. If you keep trafficking deadly drugs—we will kill you."

🎥US military kills 3 in new strike on drug-running boat

A federal judge in Rhode Island ordered the Trump administration Thursday to pay roughly $9 billion for a full month of nutrition assistance benefits by the next day.

Chief Judge John J. McConnell Jr., who was appointed by Democratic former President Barack Obama, said the administration blew its chance to choose to pay only partial benefits for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, when it failed to release funds by a Wednesday deadline.

He said&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/defiant-trump-vows-no-snap-payments-until-democrats-cave-shutdown" target="_blank">a social media post</a>&nbsp;by President Donald Trump showed the president sought to use hunger for political leverage during the government shutdown, which&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/us-senate-talks-continue-end-37-day-shutdown-final-deal-elusive" target="_blank">stretched into day 37</a>&nbsp;on Thursday.

Earlier, in a Friday oral order that he expanded in a Saturday written order, McConnell had said the government must either pay full benefits by Monday or partial benefits from a contingency fund by Wednesday.&nbsp;

The government did neither, he said Thursday.

The administration had argued it was impossible to pay the benefits, which go to 42 million Americans, within a few days, saying that the USDA had never calculated partial benefits and that coordinating new payments for SNAP, a federally funded program administered by the states, was difficult.&nbsp;

But McConnell said the department created the problem, in part by failing to prepare for it far earlier. USDA was obligated to spend from a contingency fund to ensure SNAP benefits flowed into November uninterrupted, he said.&nbsp;

“USDA did not do so,” he said. “Even when Nov. 1 came, USDA refused to use the congressionally mandated contingency funds. USDA cannot now cry that it cannot get timely payments to beneficiaries for weeks or months because states are not prepared to make partial payments.

“USDA arbitrarily and capriciously created this problem by ignoring the congressionally mandated contingency funds and failing to timely notify the states.”

McConnell also pointed to Trump’s post on Truth Social on Tuesday that indicated he would not authorize payments consistent with the judge’s order until Democrats agreed to his terms to end the government shutdown.

“The day before the compliance was ordered, the president stated his intent to defy the court order when he said, ‘SNAP payments will be given only when the government opens,’” McConnell said Thursday.

The USDA had said it would pay only partial November benefits from a contingency fund holding about $4.5 billion, rather than tap into other money at its disposal, including a $23 billion fund for child nutrition programs.

The coalition of cities and nonprofit organizations that sued to force the administration to pay SNAP benefits for November has argued the court should force USDA to pay full benefits for November.&nbsp;

In addition to the missed Wednesday deadline, the move violated a fundamental administrative law requiring federal agencies not to make arbitrary and capricious decisions, Kristin Bateman of the Democracy Forward Foundation, which is representing the groups, said Thursday.

The child nutrition program would not need its billions of dollars until June, she said, meaning that transferring funds for SNAP would only actually hurt the child nutrition program if the shutdown persists until then.

“A decision on such a highly unlikely set of events is not reasoned decision-making,” Bateman said. “It’s particularly unreasonable because the defendants have not explained why they would choose to let 42 million Americans, including 16 million children, go hungry now in order to guard against the extreme outside chance that come June, there won’t be enough money to fund child nutrition programs.”

McConnell agreed that invoking the child nutrition fund was “entirely pretextual,” which was demonstrated in part by Trump’s post and other statements by administration officials.

“The defendants’ stated desire to conserve funding for the child nutrition programs is entirely pretextual, given the numerous statements made in recent weeks by the president and his administration officials who admit to withholding full SNAP benefits for political reasons,” he said.

McConnell also noted that the case should be resolved as soon as possible to help provide food to hungry people or “needless suffering will occur.”

Tyler Becker, who argued on behalf of the USDA, said the department had done its part by making available to states a table showing how they should allocate partial November benefits for households of differing circumstances.

SNAP is a complex program, requiring coordination between the federal government and all 50 states, each of which has a different system for distributing benefits.

“The government did make the payments, is making the payments to the states,” he said. “That’s all the government does in the SNAP program.”

He added that the government had shown earlier in the case some of the administrative difficulties of paying partial benefits.

In a separate case in Massachusetts federal court, some states said they could process the benefits immediately, while others cannot.

But McConnell cut him off shortly after, saying the federal government was responsible for ensuring people got their SNAP benefits.

“The problem that the government identified needed to be resolved one way or the other by Wednesday,” he said. “And if it wasn’t resolved by Wednesday, then you had to make the full payments, because that’s the only way we could get money to people immediately and alleviate the irreparable harm, whether you could or couldn’t do anything about that.”

In a Sept. 30 contingency plan about how to proceed during a government shutdown, the USDA itself said it would pay for continuing benefits through the contingency fund, which at the time held $6 billion. The administration&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/usda-wont-shuffle-funds-extend-snap-during-shutdown-about-face-earlier-plan" target="_blank">later reversed that plan</a>&nbsp;and said it could not tap the contingency fund.

In the Massachusetts case, which was brought by 25 Democratic states and the District of Columbia, the states argued Thursday that confusion stemming from a miscalculation the USDA made in determining November partial benefits was a reason to force the administration to pay for a full month.

The hearing followed a late Wednesday night filing from the USDA correcting an error it made in calculating the amounts beneficiaries would receive under its plan for partial payments.&nbsp;

The department said it will reduce the largest monthly food assistance payments by about 35% in November, down from a 50% cut the department initially estimated.

USDA miscalculated how to adjust benefit payments for SNAP to account for a lack of full funding during the government shutdown, a department official said in&nbsp;<a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/26218472-usdadocnov5/" target="_blank">a filing</a>&nbsp;to the U.S. District Court for Rhode Island.&nbsp;

The formula the government initially used and sent to states Tuesday would have resulted in about a 50% cut to the maximum monthly benefits, and left some households without benefits.&nbsp;

SNAP pays benefits on a sliding scale depending on the size of a household, the household’s income and other expenses such as housing. By cutting the maximum benefit by one-half, the department would have spent about $3 billion from a SNAP contingency fund instead of the full $4.65 billion in the fund, which is what the court ordered it to spend.

The mixup created confusion for state administrators, the states in the Massachusetts litigation said.

“The fact they have been asked to suddenly shift on a dime yet again as a result of these entirely new tables, causing further chaos and delay, underscores that USDA’s approach here is untenable and unlawful,” the states wrote in&nbsp;<a href="https://www.mass.gov/doc/snap-reply-brief/download" target="_blank">a Thursday brief</a>.

The error was first reported to McConnell by the coalition of cities and nonprofit organizations that sued to force the government to pay SNAP benefits this month.&nbsp;

An analysis submitted by Sharon Parrott, a former White House budget officer who now leads the left-leaning think tank Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, showed that the table the department submitted to the court and sent to states on Tuesday would fall short of the court’s order to spend the entire contingency fund.

The groups said the department’s error was another reason the court should compel the government to transfer funds to pay out full benefits for November.

“Defendants’ approach means that only around $3 billion—out of the $4.65 billion Defendants have said is available—will be spent on SNAP benefits in November, leaving more than $1.5 billion in contingency funds unspent,” they wrote in a Wednesday brief. “Defendants opted for partial (and delayed) SNAP payments, but even then, did not manage to do that correctly.”

The department said in its filing later Wednesday that it independently discovered its miscalculation and worked to fix it before Parrott’s declaration hit the court docket.

“Defendants realized this error and worked to issue new guidance and tables as soon as it was discovered, not in response to Plaintiffs’ notice filed earlier this evening,” USDA’s brief said.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/11/1762201737176.jpeg" alt="A sign in a convenience store along Barlowe Road in Hyattsville, Maryland, on Tuesday, Oct. 28, 2025, advertises that it accepts SNAP benefilts..jpg" />
 <figcaption>A sign in a convenience store along Barlowe Road in Hyattsville, Maryland, on Tuesday, Oct. 28, 2025, advertises that it accepts SNAP benefilts..jpg</figcaption>
 </figure>By:<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/jacob-fischler/">Jacob Fischler</a>A federal judge in Rhode Island ordered the Trump administration Thursday to pay roughly $9 billion for a full month of nutrition assistance benefits by the next day.Chief Judge John J. McConnell Jr., who was appointed by Democratic former President Barack Obama, said the administration blew its chance to choose to pay only partial benefits for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, when it failed to release funds by a Wednesday deadline.He said&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/defiant-trump-vows-no-snap-payments-until-democrats-cave-shutdown" target="_blank">a social media post</a>&nbsp;by President Donald Trump showed the president sought to use hunger for political leverage during the government shutdown, which&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/us-senate-talks-continue-end-37-day-shutdown-final-deal-elusive" target="_blank">stretched into day 37</a>&nbsp;on Thursday.Earlier, in a Friday oral order that he expanded in a Saturday written order, McConnell had said the government must either pay full benefits by Monday or partial benefits from a contingency fund by Wednesday.&nbsp;The government did neither, he said Thursday.The administration had argued it was impossible to pay the benefits, which go to 42 million Americans, within a few days, saying that the USDA had never calculated partial benefits and that coordinating new payments for SNAP, a federally funded program administered by the states, was difficult.&nbsp;<h2>‘USDA cannot now cry’</h2>But McConnell said the department created the problem, in part by failing to prepare for it far earlier. USDA was obligated to spend from a contingency fund to ensure SNAP benefits flowed into November uninterrupted, he said.&nbsp;“USDA did not do so,” he said. “Even when Nov. 1 came, USDA refused to use the congressionally mandated contingency funds. USDA cannot now cry that it cannot get timely payments to beneficiaries for weeks or months because states are not prepared to make partial payments.“USDA arbitrarily and capriciously created this problem by ignoring the congressionally mandated contingency funds and failing to timely notify the states.”McConnell also pointed to Trump’s post on Truth Social on Tuesday that indicated he would not authorize payments consistent with the judge’s order until Democrats agreed to his terms to end the government shutdown.“The day before the compliance was ordered, the president stated his intent to defy the court order when he said, ‘SNAP payments will be given only when the government opens,’” McConnell said Thursday.<h2>Child nutrition funding suggested</h2>The USDA had said it would pay only partial November benefits from a contingency fund holding about $4.5 billion, rather than tap into other money at its disposal, including a $23 billion fund for child nutrition programs.The coalition of cities and nonprofit organizations that sued to force the administration to pay SNAP benefits for November has argued the court should force USDA to pay full benefits for November.&nbsp;In addition to the missed Wednesday deadline, the move violated a fundamental administrative law requiring federal agencies not to make arbitrary and capricious decisions, Kristin Bateman of the Democracy Forward Foundation, which is representing the groups, said Thursday.The child nutrition program would not need its billions of dollars until June, she said, meaning that transferring funds for SNAP would only actually hurt the child nutrition program if the shutdown persists until then.“A decision on such a highly unlikely set of events is not reasoned decision-making,” Bateman said. “It’s particularly unreasonable because the defendants have not explained why they would choose to let 42 million Americans, including 16 million children, go hungry now in order to guard against the extreme outside chance that come June, there won’t be enough money to fund child nutrition programs.”McConnell agreed that invoking the child nutrition fund was “entirely pretextual,” which was demonstrated in part by Trump’s post and other statements by administration officials.“The defendants’ stated desire to conserve funding for the child nutrition programs is entirely pretextual, given the numerous statements made in recent weeks by the president and his administration officials who admit to withholding full SNAP benefits for political reasons,” he said.McConnell also noted that the case should be resolved as soon as possible to help provide food to hungry people or “needless suffering will occur.”<h2>‘A state problem’</h2>Tyler Becker, who argued on behalf of the USDA, said the department had done its part by making available to states a table showing how they should allocate partial November benefits for households of differing circumstances.SNAP is a complex program, requiring coordination between the federal government and all 50 states, each of which has a different system for distributing benefits.“The government did make the payments, is making the payments to the states,” he said. “That’s all the government does in the SNAP program.”He added that the government had shown earlier in the case some of the administrative difficulties of paying partial benefits.In a separate case in Massachusetts federal court, some states said they could process the benefits immediately, while others cannot.“This is a state problem,” he said.But McConnell cut him off shortly after, saying the federal government was responsible for ensuring people got their SNAP benefits.“The problem that the government identified needed to be resolved one way or the other by Wednesday,” he said. “And if it wasn’t resolved by Wednesday, then you had to make the full payments, because that’s the only way we could get money to people immediately and alleviate the irreparable harm, whether you could or couldn’t do anything about that.”In a Sept. 30 contingency plan about how to proceed during a government shutdown, the USDA itself said it would pay for continuing benefits through the contingency fund, which at the time held $6 billion. The administration&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/usda-wont-shuffle-funds-extend-snap-during-shutdown-about-face-earlier-plan" target="_blank">later reversed that plan</a>&nbsp;and said it could not tap the contingency fund.In the Massachusetts case, which was brought by 25 Democratic states and the District of Columbia, the states argued Thursday that confusion stemming from a miscalculation the USDA made in determining November partial benefits was a reason to force the administration to pay for a full month.<h2>USDA corrects miscalculation</h2>The hearing followed a late Wednesday night filing from the USDA correcting an error it made in calculating the amounts beneficiaries would receive under its plan for partial payments.&nbsp;The department said it will reduce the largest monthly food assistance payments by about 35% in November, down from a 50% cut the department initially estimated.USDA miscalculated how to adjust benefit payments for SNAP to account for a lack of full funding during the government shutdown, a department official said in&nbsp;<a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/26218472-usdadocnov5/" target="_blank">a filing</a>&nbsp;to the U.S. District Court for Rhode Island.&nbsp;The formula the government initially used and sent to states Tuesday would have resulted in about a 50% cut to the maximum monthly benefits, and left some households without benefits.&nbsp;SNAP pays benefits on a sliding scale depending on the size of a household, the household’s income and other expenses such as housing. By cutting the maximum benefit by one-half, the department would have spent about $3 billion from a SNAP contingency fund instead of the full $4.65 billion in the fund, which is what the court ordered it to spend.The mixup created confusion for state administrators, the states in the Massachusetts litigation said.“The fact they have been asked to suddenly shift on a dime yet again as a result of these entirely new tables, causing further chaos and delay, underscores that USDA’s approach here is untenable and unlawful,” the states wrote in&nbsp;<a href="https://www.mass.gov/doc/snap-reply-brief/download" target="_blank">a Thursday brief</a>.The error was first reported to McConnell by the coalition of cities and nonprofit organizations that sued to force the government to pay SNAP benefits this month.&nbsp;<h2>Think tank discovers discrepancy&nbsp;</h2>An analysis submitted by Sharon Parrott, a former White House budget officer who now leads the left-leaning think tank Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, showed that the table the department submitted to the court and sent to states on Tuesday would fall short of the court’s order to spend the entire contingency fund.The groups said the department’s error was another reason the court should compel the government to transfer funds to pay out full benefits for November.“Defendants’ approach means that only around $3 billion—out of the $4.65 billion Defendants have said is available—will be spent on SNAP benefits in November, leaving more than $1.5 billion in contingency funds unspent,” they wrote in a Wednesday brief. “Defendants opted for partial (and delayed) SNAP payments, but even then, did not manage to do that correctly.”The department said in its filing later Wednesday that it independently discovered its miscalculation and worked to fix it before Parrott’s declaration hit the court docket.“Defendants realized this error and worked to issue new guidance and tables as soon as it was discovered, not in response to Plaintiffs’ notice filed earlier this evening,” USDA’s brief said.

Trump admin. ordered to pay full $9B in November SNAP benefits amid shutdown

Executive order follows similar orders invoked in other states

<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2025/11/06/pillen-signs-order-cutting-off-state-tax-dollars-to-nebraska-abortion-providers/">Nebraska Examiner</a>

LINCOLN — Gov. Jim Pillen signed an executive order Thursday cutting off state tax dollars from medical service providers in Nebraska that offer abortions.

<h2>Executive order follows similar orders invoked in other states</h2>By Erin Bamer<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2025/11/06/pillen-signs-order-cutting-off-state-tax-dollars-to-nebraska-abortion-providers/">Nebraska Examiner</a><figure>
 <img src="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/pillen-hilgers-EO_ZJW_110625-01-1536x1024.jpg" alt="&nbsp;Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen, left, shakes hands with Attorney General Mike Hilgers after signing a new executive order shutting off Medicaid dollars for abortion providers in Nebraska. Nov. 6, 2025. (Zach Wendling/Nebraska Examiner)" />
 <figcaption>&nbsp;Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen, left, shakes hands with Attorney General Mike Hilgers after signing a new executive order shutting off Medicaid dollars for abortion providers in Nebraska. Nov. 6, 2025. (Zach Wendling/Nebraska Examiner)</figcaption>
 </figure>LINCOLN — Gov. Jim Pillen signed an executive order Thursday cutting off state tax dollars from medical service providers in Nebraska that offer abortions.Local abortion clinics primarily receive state aid through Medicaid funds, which supports various services beyond abortions, including birth control and cancer screenings. This summer, Congress cut off federal funds to Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers and restricted Medicaid funds going to abortion providers through the passage of the “One Big Beautiful Bill.”Under the order, Pillen said any abortion provider terminated from another state’s Medicaid program will have their enrollment terminated in Nebraska.“We’re not going to let abortion providers skirt accountability while claiming our money,” Pillen said.Planned Parenthood officials did not immediately respond to a request for comment.Kenny Zoeller, director of the governor’s Policy Research Office, said Nebraska abortion providers currently receive about $250,000 per year in state tax dollars.“From my seat, $1 is too much,” Pillen said.Pillen announced the executive order at a press conference alongside Attorney General Mike Hilgers and Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services CEO Steve Corsi.Hilgers clarified that state and federal law already prohibit tax dollars from supporting abortion procedures, but the executive order expands that restriction to cut off funding for any services offered by an abortion provider.Hilgers said state officials have considered taking this action for some time but were waiting on the results of the U.S. Supreme Court case Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic. The high court’s ruling prohibits Medicaid enrollees in any state that excludes Planned Parenthood from using their Medicaid coverage to obtain other services from Planned Parenthood, including contraception..Hilgers said the ruling gave Nebraska “unassailable ground,” to enforce Pillen’s order.“It is quite clear that Nebraska can take the action that it is taking today,” Hilgers said.The executive order is titled, “Protecting the Life, Health, and Welfare of Pregnant Women, and Unborn Human Life.” The order specifically names Planned Parenthood, but Hilgers later clarified that the restriction would also apply to Bellevue’s abortion clinic, CARE Reproductive Health.Though Planned Parenthood has two clinics in Nebraska — one in Omaha and the other in Lincoln — the Lincoln clinic’s website specifies that it does not offer abortions. Hilgers said the order will only apply to clinics that provide abortions. However, Pillen speculated that any Planned Parenthood clinic has the ability to provide abortions.Both Hilgers and Pillen noted that Nebraska has a collection of other clinics that offer services to pregnant women but don’t offer abortions. They argued there are plenty of resources for pregnant women to access care in Nebraska. They were likely referencing pregnancy help centers, which have been both praised and criticized for steering people away from abortion clinics and other reproductive care.The executive order was met with praise from anti-abortion lobbying groups, including Nebraska Family Alliance and the Nebraska Catholic Conference. In an email statement, Nebraska Family Alliance Executive Director Nate Grasz said “Nebraska is rightfully taking action to protect life and uphold our state’s pro-life values.”“(Planned Parenthood) is not an organization that deserves public money or public patronage,” Marion Miner, assistant director of pro-life and family for the Nebraska Catholic Conference, said in a separate statement.<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/11/1762456862318.png" alt=" " />
 <figcaption> </figcaption>
 </figure><figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/11/1762456872577.png" alt=" " />
 <figcaption> </figcaption>
 </figure><figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/11/1762456889601.png" alt=" " />
 <figcaption> </figcaption>
 </figure><figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/11/1762456902540.png" alt=" " />
 <figcaption> </figcaption>
 </figure>