That was one of the first questions I confronted when I reached my assignment at Fort Carson, Colorado, in 1969. I was a brand-new second lieutenant in the infantry. I was given command of a platoon, and I had other jobs. I was the company pay officer. The first month I paid the troops, I discovered that about 75 percent were not getting their proper amount of pay, and the amounts they were supposed to receive were a pittance to begin with. A sergeant with a wife and two kids earned $135 a month basic pay, with another $36 in “subsistence” meant for food, and about $50 housing allowance for rent. A buck private who lived in the barracks was paid a flat $90 a month.

Another job I had was mess officer. That’s how I discovered that every night, soldiers with families who could not afford to feed their wives and children were getting leftover food from the mess hall off the loading dock. The mess sergeant was selling cans of beans and potatoes and even raw whole chickens after the evening meal. He charged only a dime for a chicken and a few cents for potatoes or a can of beans. The sergeant was committing a crime by enriching himself from the sale of government property, even in nickels and dimes, but at least the troops were getting surplus food that would have otherwise gone to waste.

What was I supposed to do? I talked to some of the guys in my platoon who were getting surplus food from the mess hall. If I put a stop to it, they couldn’t feed their families.

It was absurd. We were the wealthiest country in the world. We were drafting many, if not most, of the soldiers into the military and then not paying them enough to feed their families.

So, I went down to the federal building in Colorado Springs and learned that every enlisted soldier in the army who had a family was eligible for food stamps. In groups of three and four, I drove them downtown and signed them up until every guy with a family in my platoon was in the program. In some cases, they were getting more in food stamps than their basic pay. I told the other lieutenants in the company, and they started doing the same thing with their platoons.

Somehow, the brigade commander got wind of what we were doing and called me in and ordered me to stop putting soldiers on food stamps. He said what I was doing was bringing discredit on the Army. So, consulting with one of the corporals in my platoon who had a wife and a child, I figured out a basic budget, showing his rent, car payment, car insurance, what he paid for food, to get his fatigues starched at a local laundry, gas and oil for the car and a few dollars for baby formula and diapers and clothes for the baby. Nothing extra for the sergeant and his wife – no money for McDonalds or clothes or recreation – even though we were in Colorado, it was winter, and there was skiing an hour away. Nothing for skiing. He was in the red every month. Food stamps gave him enough money not only for food, but for a few extras. I showed the figures to the colonel a few days later.

The colonel gave in. I told other lieutenants in the brigade how to get troops on food stamps. It spread. By the time LIFE magazine published a story on the division commander and the new volunteer army a year or so later, he was bragging that his division was the first one in the army to have organized getting soldiers on food stamps.

I didn’t tell the colonel that I had organized distribution of excess food at the mess hall. The mess sergeant no longer charged for the canned food and potatoes and chickens. I made sure the cooks divided the food fairly between the soldiers who needed it. One of the cooks complimented me for having “organized theft.” He was correct.

Here we are nearly 60 years later, and hunger among families of low-ranking troops is still a problem. About 40 percent of all members of the military report problems with food insecurity. An astonishing 57 percent of soldiers in the lowest ranks who have wives or husbands and children are having problems feeding their families, according to a story published today by The Guardian. Even 14 percent of lower-ranking officers report at least some food insecurity.

It’s not a new problem. Members of the House and the Senate and presidents of both parties have known about the problem of food insecurity among the soldiers and sailors and Marines and members of the Air Force and Coast Guard for all these years.

There is a solution that is known by all: more pay and benefits to members of the military, both active duty and reserve. About 25 percent of the defense budget goes to paying uniformed members of the military. If Congress devoted more money to pay for cost-of-living related expenses, such as food, rent, and childcare, there wouldn’t be food insecurity in our military.

Congress has taken a couple of stabs over the years at military food insecurity. They established a program called Family Assistance Supplemental Allowance, or FSSA, that was intended to raise military family income to 130 percent of the poverty level. But the application process was so cumbersome and restrictive that the FSSA program denied 97 percent of applicants. It was discontinued in 2016. Today there is a similar program called the “basic need allowance” intended to help members of the military with families whose total pay and allowances is less than 200 percent of the federal poverty level. According to the Guardian, once again the application process is complicated by the fact that soldiers must apply through their chain of commands. Many soldiers are reluctant to apply because they fear being listed as financially irresponsible, which can affect efficiency ratings and promotions. The Guardian reports that in 2023, the first year the program was available, only 77 military families received assistance.

Members of the military earning low pay are still eligible for the food stamp program, now called SNAP. But again, eligibility for members of the military is complicated by how the income maximums are determined. Soldiers receive untaxed pay in the form of Basic Allowance for Housing and Basic Allowance for Subsistence on top of their taxed basic cash pay. SNAP benefits are calculated taking those extra benefits into account as income, making many soldiers, especially those living in high-priced housing markets, ineligible.

Stars and Stripes reported early this year that a study done by Blue Star Families that polled 6,000 members of the military found that “more than a quarter of military families…said they struggled to put food on the table.” The study found that 22 percent of those polled said they have used food pantries, and 30 percent said they “often or sometimes could not afford to eat balanced meals.”

Costs are up for everyone in this country, from rents to electricity to food to gas to…well, the entire Democratic Party is running on cost of living as an issue, because people are strapped, especially at the bottom of the income distribution.

It’s especially bad for members of the military, who are compelled to live wherever the Army or Navy or Marines or Air Force sends them. The military attempts to compensate for assignments to areas with higher prices by supplementing the basic housing and subsistence allowance. But businesses around military bases, whether they are Naval installations or Army posts or Air Force bases, have a captive audience. Rents around military bases are steadily higher than the basic housing allowance. Many military bases are surrounded by businesses offering car insurance at excessive rates, payday loans that charge exorbitant interest, and even supermarkets that manage to have prices that are greater than those 50 or 100 miles away.

Members of the military can sometimes be reassigned every year, although three and four year assignments are more common. This makes it very difficult for husbands and wives of soldiers to get jobs. According to Stars and Stripes, 23 percent of military spouses were unemployed in 2025, a year with a civilian unemployment rate of 4.4 percent. Among military spouses who were working, 70 percent reported that they were underemployed. Constant reassignments thus lead to reduced total family income, which causes less money for rent and electricity and food and everything else families need, whether they’re in the military or not.

To its credit, Congress has tried to fill in some of the money gaps for the military. In 2025, Congress passed a 14.5 percent pay increase for enlisted soldiers in the lower ranks. The same year, a 4.5 increase was passed for all troops.

But Congress won’t, or can’t, keep throwing money at a problem that doesn’t go away. Every time the troops get a raise, rents go up around military bases. Used car prices go up. You could call it gouging the troops, and you would be right.

The problem with money is that it’s fungible. If you simply pay a soldier more money, he or she might decide to spend the extra funds on a higher priced car or clothes that cost more. Soldiers, especially those in the lower ranks, are young – sometimes very young – 20 or 21 or 22 years old. You can buy a pair of sneakers for $30 at Walmart. You can also blow $250 on a glorious pair of sneakers that’ll get you noticed walking down the street. Thinking about how much money is left for diapers or food or to pay that traffic ticket you just got isn’t your strong suit at that age. I was 22 when I was a second lieutenant. I was better at figuring out the budget of married corporals than I was at handling my own. I remember a new pair of expensive ski boots that would make that case.

Some sixty years have passed, and we’re still dealing with privates and sergeants who can’t afford rent and eggs and bread and an occasional donut. What does that tell us? Countries like ours will always need armies. There will be young, impressionable, occasionally stupid people who serve in those armies. Congresses that once had great senior Senators and Speakers of the House after whom buildings were named handled difficult problems about as well as the current crop serving in the Capitol.

We haven’t even mentioned that this country suffers the same problems with food insecurity among farmers and low-wage workers and people who don’t even have a job. And then there is the problem of one of our two political parties simply not giving a red white and blue shit whether or not Americans have enough to eat or a place to lay their heads.

Intractable is the word that comes to mind when thinking about eternal problems that seemingly have no solutions, good or bad, easy or hard. There is some hope that the problem of feeding families is being dealt with, at least partially, by food banks and charities that pitch in to help. The reporter for The Guardian visited the Food Care Center in Killeen, Texas, that serves active-duty families of soldiers at nearby Fort Hood. He even talked to a soldier who was there picking up a bag containing about $100 worth of food, including sweet potatoes, carrots, eggs, and frozen chicken breasts.

It’s not a mess hall loading dock, but a food bank is doing the same thing: feeding hungry soldiers and their families. Good on them.

Give a gift subscription

Leave a comment

Share

Ohio's EdChoice voucher program is a classic example of how these programs are planted and then grow. But a recent court decision suggests that EdChoice will suffer because of that growth.

EdChoice was launched in 2006 after the usual wailing and gnashing of teeth about poor students trapped in underperforming public schools. But for voucher fans, this is always only the beginning. In 2013, legislators came up with EdChoice Expansion, which upped the voucher ante to 200% of the federal poverty level and removed any "trapped in a bad school" requirement. They were encouraged by Simmons-Harris v. Goff, a 1999 case in which the state supreme court found the Cleveland pilot voucher program did not violate the state constitution because it was narrow, focused and cheap (but still lost because it was birthed by legislative shenanigans-- another voucher classic).

In 2022 some public schools and students sued the state for violating Ohio's constitution and its requirement to maintain "a thorough and efficient system of common schools." Legislators were unimpressed; in 2023 they went ahead and expanded the expansion of vouchers, offering vouchers to any family, regardless of income (if you were more than 450% of the poverty line, you only got part of a voucher). However, the program commenced to suck up $1.4 billion-with-a-b in taxpayer dollars.

Last year a Franklin County judge declared the voucher program unconstitutional. The state appealed to the Tenth Appellate District Court of Appeals, and last week that court agreed that, yes, the program violates the state constitution.

The court found a couple of problems. Bottom line:

EdChoice, as presently structured and funded, secures with taxpayer funds a competing system of uncommon schools that is not subject to the same obligations imposed on Ohio’s system of common schools. This system of uncommon schools violates the mandate of Ohio Const. art. VI, § 2 to secure “a thorough and efficient system of common schools throughout the state.”

The court finds that EdChoice schools are not common schools for three reasons.

First, the schools--not the parents--choose which students to admit, without "any meaningful constraints on the schools' selection process. They "actually end up depriving families of choice." Second, EdChoice schools are available only in urban areas; rural students don't get that choice. Third, EdChoice schools are not "subject to any meaningful state oversight. " No fiscal oversight, no requirement for teacher licensure. And as noted in the first point, no meaningful anti-discrimination regulations.

 The court also finds that EdChoice "undermines the financial integrity" of the state's public schools. Again, three reasons.

First, taxpayer funds are diverted to private schools instead of public ones. This is a particularly bitter pill in Ohio, where the courts thirty (thirty!!) years ago told the legislature that the school funding formula was unconstitutional and they needed to shape it up. The legislature dithered and ten years ago came up with a Fair School Funding Plan, which they have since failed to actually fund, or even act like they want to. 

Second, EdChoice increases the per-pupil cost of educating the students remaining in public school, because voucher schools select the cheapest-to-serve students.

The third point is a more subtle one, and I'm a little impressed that the court got it. In Ohio, taxpayers get to vote directly on education tax increases (levies). The court correctly concludes that EdChoice makes local taxpayers less likely to vote for local tax levies. We've actually seen this movie before-- after Brown white parents pulled their children out of public schools and sent them to segregation academies, but then they also chopped taxpayer support for the schools their children no longer attended. Says the court-

We recognize that many factors influence whether levies pass or fail. However, the record supports the conclusion that EdChoice’s impact on public schools— through the extraction of resources and the erosion of the public’s incentive to remain invested in local schools—is among those factors that may affect levy support. 

So EdChoice is, in fact, unconstitutional.

Is this the end? Of course not. Recognizing that this case will continue to climb the judicial ladder all the way to the state supreme court, the appellate court has allowed that the program can continue while the legal wrangling goes on. The law shops lined up to help the state include some Catholic school heavy hitters, including the Notre Dame Law School Religious Liberty Clinic, which has gotten involved in some tax dollars for religious school business before. 

Meanwhile, a House version of "Take The Dough, We Gotta Know" bill wants to add some transparency to the Ohio voucher landscape. The Ohio GOP really aspires to make Ohio the Florida of the North, and people just keep getting in their way. May their hard times continue.

It took almost a year for Sen. Lindsey O. Graham Jr. to persuade Donald Trump to agree to the Russian sanctions package, notes the Associated Press.

It took a relative moment to destroy it, ignoring an overwhelming vote in Congress to ignore a newly passed law as it was about to take effect on Sunday.

The measure, designed to impose steep tariffs on countries that import large amounts of Russian oil and energy products, and was promoted to help halt the flow of funds fueling Vladimir’s Putin’s four-year war against Ukraine – and to support U.S. diplomatic efforts in seeking an end to the war with Iran, amid reports that Russia has been helping Iran to target U.S. service members.

By Monday, The Wall Street Journal was reporting that Trump is hearing a proposal to settle the Russia-Ukraine War at a summit with Russia and China, ignoring Ukraine altogether.

What Trump has wrought just a couple of weeks before the November election is a chaotic sprint for logic and a boatload of anger from Ukraine, European allies, bipartisan blocs of legislators and voters.

Together with a deal with Russia to export diesel oil globally in hopes of lowering pre-election domestic pump costs (that is not happening) and pressure on Ukraine to stop bombing Russian oil facilities, Trump put the U.S. on the side of invader Russia in that war, and he weirdly is aligning U.S. interests with greater business hopes with Russia over the apparent safety of U.S. troops in the Middle East.

Trump called it a move in the “national interest” – which apparently, he alone determines – ignoring the ineffective effect for any extra diesel distribution and denying U.S. intelligence that points to Russian involvement in targeting U.S. and Gulf bases.

It is this Trump-alone declaration “national interest,” another in a set of deals that appear to benefit himself and family, another in a series of moves in which Trump thumbs his nose at Congress and the law, that should be our focus.

Given the clear case for sanctions, there is no reason to believe that Trump will not use the same power to declare “national interests” to justify interference with state-run elections, the seating of election winners, adherence to court decisions, approval for his gilded personal glorification projects or continued excess in his mass deportation campaign.

Trump’s Shift to Russia

As Axios notes, whether it was the diesel deal or a fight over Ukraine’s ability to use Starshield technology to defend itself against Russian munitions, or the public denial of Russian involvement in the Iran war, Trump has spent the last few days shifting America’s position on an old foe.

For sure, House and Senate Republicans are suddenly ornery about getting set aside, and threatening to block additional Pentagon funding in the lame-duck congressional session that will follow elections unless the administration recants, and get tougher on Russia. War/Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is seeking at least $350 billion in new military spending as part of a partisan reconciliation bill.

Rolling Stone Magazine is going further, raising the question of  “treason” by Trump because of the suspension of sanctions. The legal definition of “treason” as a crime may not fit because

the United States is not formally at war with Russia, and the president has broad constitutional authority to manage foreign affairs and sanctions.

But the sense shared internationally that there is a deep betrayal of national interest here by Trump is hard to avoid.

“Treason” as a charged crime is a reason cited in the Constitution for impeachment of the president. Betrayal is merely political.

For sure, Trump, who also insisted that Ukraine and Russia had agreed to a non-existent, immediate energy ceasefire, has risked more civilian Ukrainian lives to Russian missile attacks on non-military electricity plants, and made resistance much more difficult just before onset of winter. As well, Trump has done nothing to advance the resolution of the more immediate causes of oil interruptions with Iran.

The Politics Make No Sense

Moving deliberately closer to Russia and Putin raises a host of legal, moral, diplomatic and strategic questions, of course. Doing so just before an election in which Republican candidates are fighting to retain a majority in Congress while trying to defend these moves is a head-scratcher. It makes no sense politically either.

The sheer number of normally silent Republican senators who are finding fault with Trump over the Russia shuffle is noteworthy – including Sen. Darline Graham, sister of the senator whose name and reputation are all over the sanctions bill.

Clearly Democrats are seizing on the moment to point out Trump’s historic lean over time to find reason to support Russia, even as Trump fights relentlessly against perceptions that a “weaponized” Justice Department had investigated longtime ties between his family and business with Russian operatives and oligarchs.

Trump made public statements about national security to justify a change in sanctions policies, then backed off a bit. Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters Trump would take 60 days to review global and U.S. economic impacts from imposing sanctions on Russia and other countries, considering tariffs already in place.

New York Rep. Gregory Meeks, ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee who had led opposition to the Graham bill — warned that Trump would flout the law. He has  introduced legislation to block Trump’s diesel deal with Putin.

The sanctions were scheduled to kick in Sunday designed to squeeze Russia’s economy and deprive it of cash to fund its war against Ukraine. The legislation also targets the world’s top five buyers of Russian oil and gas and extends sanctions against Iran. Some pre-2026 sanctions by the U.S. and Europe remain in place to restrict Russian energy export, shadow fleets and other trade goods.

“FREEDOM OF THE PRESS IS NOT JUST IMPORTANT TO DEMOCRACY, IT IS DEMOCRACY.” – Walter Cronkite. CLICK HERE to donate in support of our free and independent voice.

The post Trump Sides With Putin, Undermines Russian Sanctions and Defies Congress appeared first on DCReport.org.

We need to say some things about Donald Trump and his obedience to Vladimir Putin. We don’t know why he appears to be under Putin’s control. We don’t know if Putin has “kompromat” on Trump. We don’t know why Trump regularly calls Putin on the phone. We don’t know why he rolled out a real red carpet on the tarmac of an American Air Force base in Alaska last year and met him personally at his plane. We don’t know why their subsequent meeting lasted only three hours, when Trump’s flight to Alaska took six hours and Putin’s flight from Moscow took 12 hours with a stop to refuel. We still don’t know why Trump met with Putin at Helsinki with no note takers or even a U.S. translator present.

We most especially do not have any idea why Trump made an about face in his support for Ukraine this week and announced that he was relaxing sanctions that had been passed in the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act. Yesterday, Trump called helping Russia make money for its war on Ukraine “a very good decision.” We don’t know why Trump made a deal with Putin to release sanctions on Russian oil in exchange for a phony shipment of Russian diesel fuel that has not happened and probably will not happen and will have absolutely no effect on the price of diesel on world markets or at the pump in the U.S.

Donald Trump has access to the best intelligence in the world on Russia and Iran. Every time Iran launched a missile during Trump’s war, the U.S. knew the location from which it had been launched and what its trajectory was. Trump was told at the time Iran destroyed several billion-dollar radar installations and a U.S. intelligence surveillance aircraft on the ground in Saudi Arabia that the coordinates Iran was using for those targets had been supplied by Russia. Twelve American service members were seriously injured by the Iranian missiles.

Donald Trump knew exactly what would happen when Ukrainian access to the Starshield satellite network was slowed last week and in some cases along the front lines cut completely. He authorized the cut in access anyway. The resulting loss in satellite coverage caused significant Ukrainian military and civilian losses.

Trump knew when he sent his envoys, Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff, to have a private, closed-door meeting with Putin on September 5 that they would discuss potential business deals that would involve the Trump Organization.

Let’s see what else Trump knows. He knows that in February of 2022, Vladimir Putin ordered a massive army of Russian soldiers to cross the border from Russia, Belarus, and Crimea into Ukraine in the largest military assault by one country on another since World War II. Trump knows that this was a violation of international law. Trump knows that at this moment, Russia occupies about a fifth of Ukraine’s internationally recognized territory.

What we don’t know is why Trump blames the war in Ukraine on Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Russian soldiers occupy a huge swath of Eastern and Southeastern Ukraine, not to mention all of Crimea, which until 2014 was part of Ukraine.

Trump said last week that Putin “wants to make a deal” to end the war in Ukraine. He has said this over and over and over again. We do not know what he even means by a “deal” to end the war. If Putin wants to make a deal to end the war, why is he pounding Kyiv and Odessa and Kharkiv every night with hundreds of missiles and drones, killing dozens of Ukrainian civilians every time he does it?

Here is what we do know: Putin could pull his forces out of Ukraine. He could order his army to stand down and stop firing their weapons and get in their vehicles and drive east and north across the Russian border, and south into Crimea, and that would end the war. A similar act by Ukrainian President Zelenskyy would not end the war. If the Ukrainian military stood down and abandoned its defenses along the front lines, Russia’s military would move forward and take more Ukrainian territory until Russia occupies the entire country. That is not an end to a war. It is a capitulation to the dictator who started the war in the first place.

After nearly four years of war in Ukraine, why is Putin continuing to prosecute this war? According to figures from western military sources, Putin’s army suffered 50,000 casualties in September. 28,000 soldiers were killed. Russia lost 68 tanks that month; 207 armored personnel carriers; 12,000 military wheeled vehicles including fuel trucks. Putin’s draft and mandatory conscription can replace only 30,000 newly trained soldiers per month. His ability to replace tanks and other military vehicles is unknown, but as losses mount, it must be getting harder.

September was the worse month in the war for Putin and the Russian army. Is Trump signaling to him that he will stand by Putin and Russia in their war on Ukraine? From the outside, it certainly seems so. Why is Trump doing this for Putin when he knows that Russia has long been allied with Iran including during the war Trump started on Iran? Trump is including Russia in the Group of 20 meeting that will take place at his Doral Golf Club in Miami. That is how friendly Trump and Putin are.

Why is this happening? Despite the fact that Ukraine is not a member of NATO, Zelenskyy and his country have the support of every country in the Atlantic alliance. It is known that Russia has conducted cyber attacks on European nations and sent drones into airspace near airports in Eastern Europe. All these actions by Russia are considered acts of aggression by European nations.

Why doesn’t any of this matter to the President of the United States? Is his friendship with the Russian dictator more important to him than the U.S. defensive alliance with the friendly countries of Europe that are some of our largest trading partners? Is he afraid of Vladimir Putin for some reason that we do not know?

Trump’s friend Vladimir Putin, whom he will personally welcome to his Doral Golf Club in December, probably with another red carpet, helped Iran destroy 81 U.S. aircraft and drones during Trump’s war, according to the Congressional Research Service. Has Donald Trump lost his mind, or is he finally showing himself to be a traitor to the country he was elected to lead? Why are Republicans in the House and Senate, with very few exceptions, continuing to stand by this man who is clearly a threat to our economy and national security?

Give a gift subscription

Leave a comment

Share

I am resting up for next week, assisted by Tracy and various cats and Ruby.

This week was a tough one. Beating Trump and his enablers in two weeks became ten times as important, with him turning his back on Ukraine, embracing Putin, and repeating what has to be his biggest lie yet — that Ukraine is responsible for high gas and diesel prices, not his utterly senseless war on Iran.

He is beneath contempt. Vote. Pound them on Tuesday November 3.

Subscribe now

Give a gift subscription

Leave a comment

Share

Moving towards November is affecting more than the elections. The seasonal changeover from gasoline refining to home heating will be transferring the high cost of oil fuel to home heating.

Already, the prospective rise – massive in some areas of the Northeast – has emerged as an elections issue in the Maine senatorial race with harsh words for Sen. Susan Collins from Democratic opponent Troy Jackson.

An Axios analysis finds prices jumping at least $2 per gallon for home heating oil over this time in 2025 from around $2.50 to $4.63 now, and projected to cross the $6 per gallon price by deep winter.  Families that heat with oil could pay about 50% more this winter than last, according to  from the National Energy Assistance Directors Association (NEADA), up from its 31.3% projection in mid-September.

The average cost of heating a home with oil is expected to rise by about $878, costing over $2,600 this winter.

The reasons are the same as those for price hikes for  gasoline at the pump – wars in the Middle East, and to a lesser extent, between Ukraine and Russia, which has depressed global output.

By comparison, the Energy Information Administration’s Winter Fuels Outlook  projects electricity bills will rise 4% nationally, while natural gas bills will fall 9% and propane spending will drop 3%. EIA expects a smaller increase on heating oil than NEADA, projecting a 21% increase in household expenditures.

Hitting the Northeast

More than 80 percent of home heating oil is consumed in the Northeast, where some states lack robust natural gas pipelines, according to NEADA data. Overall, about  3% of U.S. households use oil as their primary heat source, compared to about 45% using natural gas and 43% using electricity, EIA’s report says.

Global oil markets have been struck by the distribution patterns through the Strait of Hormuz and now through the Red Sea, where Houthis are battling with Saudis. Refinery activity has declined in Iran, the result of U.S. embargoes on Iranian oil export.

As a practical matter, some families will cut back on other expenses or turn the heat down to potentially unsafe levels to cover their bills. There will be pressure on states to offer aid for heating oil or look at requiring utilities to offer discounts, affordability programs or winter shutoff protections. Those generally have not applied to independent heating-oil dealers.

Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey declared a State of Energy Emergency over rising winter energy costs, unlocking nearly $150 million in relief and expanding assistance to middle-class households that heat with oil. Rhode Island has also declared an energy affordability emergency and directed $28 million in reserves toward winter electric-bill relief, and Maine Gov. Janet Mills announced $40 million in automatically applied electricity discounts for low-income residents.

Of course, the  energy affordability issues are compounded by the Trump administration’s attempts to dismantle the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, or LIHEAP.  The administration fired LIHEAP’s federal staff at the Department of Health and Human Services in April 2025 and proposed eliminating funding for the program.

LIHEAP is still running, but state administrators are operating without dedicated federal staff.

The White House has  HHS, which said it “will carry out its responsibilities for funding Congress has made available” and that “HHS has the staff and capacity to distribute these funds in a timely manner.”

Photo: Kelly via Pexels

“FREEDOM OF THE PRESS IS NOT JUST IMPORTANT TO DEMOCRACY, IT IS DEMOCRACY.” – Walter Cronkite. CLICK HERE to donate in support of our free and independent voice.

The post Next Hurdle: Home Heating Oil appeared first on DCReport.org.