Republicans say funding for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, benefits — formerly known as food stamps — will run out on Nov. 1 due to the federal government shutdown, and there’s nothing they can do about it. Democrats say there’s a contingency fund that could and should continue to fund regular SNAP benefits.

And, in fact, that was the Republican plan up until at least a few weeks ago. Now, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which administers SNAP, says it can’t legally tap the contingency fund for that purpose.

“There has to be a preexisting appropriation for the contingency fund to be used, and Democrats blocked that appropriation when they rejected the clean continuing resolution,” Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson said at a press conference on Oct. 27. “The best way for SNAP benefits to be paid on time is for the Democrats to end their shutdown.”

We can’t say whether the USDA is barred from tapping the contingency funds for regular SNAP benefits — ultimately that may be a decision for the courts — but the USDA position that Johnson cited has apparently changed in the past month. When the Trump administration’s USDA issued a “Lapse of Funding Plan” on Sept. 30, it stated that the contingency fund, estimated to be more than $5 billion, can and should be used to fund SNAP payments in the event of a shutdown.

“In addition, Congressional intent is evident that SNAP’s operations should continue since the program has been provided with multi-year contingency funds that can be used for State Administrative Expenses to ensure that the State can also continue operations during a Federal Government shutdown,” the document states. “These multi-year contingency funds are also available to fund participant benefits in the event that a lapse occurs in the middle of the fiscal year.”

That document has since been scrubbed from the USDA website, but it’s still available via the Wayback Machine archives.

“It’s also important to note that the money currently exists within the Trump administration, including $5 billion in a contingency fund, specifically, for this kind of circumstance, to continue providing SNAP benefits to the American people, including 16 million children who might otherwise go hungry, if Donald Trump successfully withholds these SNAP benefits,” House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries said on CNN on Oct. 29. “The Trump administration doesn’t need Congress to act in order to continue providing nutritional and food assistance to everyday Americans.”

What’s at Stake?

Democrats and Republicans have been locked in a stalemate over efforts to extend federal government funding. Democrats have insisted legislation should include an extension of the more generous Affordable Care Act subsidies, which were first enacted in 2021, and a repeal of some health care measures affecting Medicaid in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Republicans have balked at those demands, and have offered only a “clean” bill to temporarily extend current federal government funding levels. As a result, the government shut down on Oct. 1.

Photo by jetcityimage / stock.adobe.com.

Funding of SNAP benefits continued through October, however, because, as the since-deleted “Lapse of Funding Plan” explained, the Office of Management and Budget’s general counsel advised obligating fiscal 2025 funds to cover SNAP benefits in October in the event of a government shutdown at the start of the fiscal year (Oct. 1). But the USDA now says it has no way to continue funding SNAP benefits beyond October, jeopardizing food assistance used by nearly 42 million Americans each month.

A banner at the top of the USDA Food & Nutrition website now states, “Senate Democrats have now voted 12 times to not fund the food stamp program, also known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Bottom line, the well has run dry. At this time, there will be no benefits issued November 01. We are approaching an inflection point for Senate Democrats. They can continue to hold out for healthcare for illegal aliens and gender mutilation procedures or reopen the government so mothers, babies, and the most vulnerable among us can receive critical nutrition assistance.”

(The votes cited in that message were votes on Republican funding bills that didn’t include the Democrats’ demands on health care funding changes.)

Democratic leaders say the Trump administration could continue funding, but has chosen not to as a form of leverage in the shutdown standoff.

Contingency Fund

The SNAP program is funded through annual appropriations, and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024, allocated about $122 billion to fund food and nutrition programs (mostly SNAP benefits), in addition to $3 billion in reserve “for use only in such amounts and at such times as may become necessary to carry out program operations” through the end of September 2026. The reserve fund is good for two years, and together with funding from the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act of 2025, the contingency reserve totaled about $6 billion prior to the shutdown.

The amount is now likely between $5 billion and $6 billion, as some of the reserve was tapped to pay administrative costs in October, according to the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

As we said, up until earlier this month, the USDA’s “Lapse of Funding Plan” envisioned tapping that reserve to pay regular SNAP benefits in the event of a shutdown. That has been the understanding guiding past administrations, as well.

For example, the USDA’s 2021 contingency plan — cited in the run-up to a 2023 shutdown — assured that SNAP benefits would be paid during a shutdown, in part by tapping “multi-year carry over funds” and “contingency reserves.”

That was also the guidance during Trump’s first presidential term, according to CBPP.

During a shutdown in early 2019, the USDA assured that SNAP benefits would continue to be paid even “without an additional appropriation from Congress.”

“At President Trump’s direction, we have been working with the Administration on this solution. It works and is legally sound. And we want to assure states, and SNAP recipients, that the benefits for February will be provided,” Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue said in a press release at the time. “Our motto here at USDA has been to ‘Do Right and Feed Everyone.’ With this solution, we’ve got the ‘Feed Everyone’ part handled. And I believe that the plan we’ve constructed takes care of the ‘Do Right’ part as well.”

As CBPP documented, guidance issued by the USDA in 2019 stated that in the event of an extended shutdown, there were contingency reserve funds available to help continue to make SNAP benefit payments.

USDA’s New Position

The USDA, however, now says it cannot use the reserve to pay regular SNAP benefits.

A USDA memo provided to NPR says, “Contingency funds are not legally available to cover regular benefits.”

“SNAP contingency funds are only available to supplement regular monthly benefits when amounts have been appropriated for, but are insufficient to cover, benefits,” the memo states. “The contingency fund is not available to support FY 2026 regular benefits, because the appropriation for regular benefits no longer exists.

“Instead, the contingency fund is a source of funds for contingencies, such as the Disaster SNAP program, which provides food purchasing benefits for individuals in disaster areas, including natural disasters like hurricanes, tornadoes, and floods, that can come on quickly and without notice. For example, Hurricane Melissa is currently swirling in the Caribbean and could reach Florida. Having funds readily available allows the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to mobilize quickly in the days and weeks following a disaster.”

The memo also says transfers from the contingency fund would “pull away funding for school meals and infant formula.”

And, it says, states can’t cover the cost either: “Despite their willingness, States cannot cover the cost of benefits and be reimbursed. Unlike other reimbursable programs, SNAP allotments are fully Federally funded. States are responsible for determining household benefits, and the movement of dollars through to the processors and ultimately to the retailers. There is no provision or allowance under current law for States to cover the cost of benefits and be reimbursed.”

“I got a summary of the whole legal analysis, and it certainly looks legitimate to me,” Johnson said at his press conference on Oct. 27. “The contingency funds are not legally available to cover the benefits right now. The reason is because it’s a finite source of funds. It was appropriated by Congress and if they transfer funds from these other sources, it pulls it away immediately from school meals and infant formula, so it’s a trade-off.”

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer isn’t buying it.

“Don’t give me the lie that this can’t be done legally,” Schumer said from the Senate floor on Oct. 29.

“Just weeks ago, Trump’s own U.S. Department of Agriculture confirmed in writing that contingency funds — about $6 billion in emergency reserves — were ‘available to fund participant benefits,'” Schumer said. “That’s not Democrats saying that. That’s the Republican-appointed U.S. Department of Agriculture saying, again, $6 billion in emergency reserves were ‘available to fund participant benefits.'”

It should be noted that the cost to fund SNAP benefits through the entire month of November (about $8 billion) is more than the amount in the contingency fund (between $5 billion and $6 billion).

According to CBPP, in addition to tapping the contingency fund, “the Administration could use its legal transfer authority … to supplement the contingency reserves, which alone are not enough to fund families’ full benefits for November.”

Said Schumer: “Never before in American history — not once under a Democratic president or a Republican president — has SNAP funding lapsed during a shutdown. Not even in 2019, during Trump’s last shutdown. In fact, Trump himself funded SNAP throughout that shutdown. So, this argument that he can’t do it and that he doesn’t have the money and that it’s not legal is just bull.”

Democratic attorneys general and governors from more than 20 states filed a federal lawsuit claiming the suspension of SNAP benefits “is both contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act.”

According to the lawsuit, “USDA suspended SNAP benefits even though, on information and belief, it has funds available to it that are sufficient to fund all, or at least a substantial portion, of November SNAP benefits.”

Meanwhile, Republican Sen. Josh Hawley introduced a bill, the “Keep SNAP Funded Act,” on Oct. 21 that seeks to ensure SNAP benefits are paid during the shutdown. It has 14 Republican co-sponsors.

In an op-ed, Hawley said, “There is no reason any of these residents of my state — or any other American who qualifies for food assistance — should go hungry. We can afford to provide the help.”

At least one Republican, Sen. Susan Collins, who co-sponsored Hawley’s bill, questioned the administration’s interpretation that it does not have the authority to use the contingency fund to continue to pay SNAP benefits.

“It is a novel interpretation for the department to claim that it cannot use that $5 billion in contingency money to help with SNAP benefits,” Collins said. “I don’t think this was a USDA opinion. I really think it was imposed by OMB and we’ve been having discussions with OMB’s attorneys.”

In an interview aboard Air Force One on Oct. 28, Trump was asked if SNAP payments would stop on Nov. 1.

“Well, we’re going to get it done,” Trump said. “The Democrats have caused the problem on food stamps. Of course, all they have to do is sign.”

Editor’s note: FactCheck.org does not accept advertising. We rely on grants and individual donations from people like you. Please consider a donation. Credit card donations may be made through our “Donate” page. If you prefer to give by check, send to: FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center, P.O. Box 58100, Philadelphia, PA 19102. 

The post Democrats and Republicans Clash Over SNAP Contingency Funds appeared first on FactCheck.org.

In the shutdown standoff over expiring Affordable Care Act tax credits, Democrats emphasize thousand-dollar premium increases for middle- or “working-class” Americans, while Republicans say people who are well-off unfairly benefit from the subsidies. Some higher-income earners could get subsidies, if they live in areas with costly insurance premiums, but about 95% of those getting subsidies in 2024 earned less than 400% of the poverty level.

And while there are cases where out-of-pocket costs are set to increase by $1,000 or $2,000 a month if the expanded tax credits are allowed to expire as scheduled, the average increase is $1,016 for the year, a 114% rise, according to estimates from the health policy research organization KFF.

(KFF’s estimate includes a median 18% increase in premiums by insurers, who have cited rising health care costs and government policies for the increase — including the expiration of the expanded subsidies, which is expected to cause some healthier enrollees to drop their coverage, according to the Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker. Having fewer healthier enrollees in a risk pool results in higher rates for the remaining policyholders.)

The homepage of HealthCare.gov, the federal government’s health insurance exchange website, as seen on a laptop computer. Photo by Tada Images – stock.adobe.com

The impact of the expiration can vary greatly, depending on age, income, family size and location. Those earning above 400% of poverty (that’s above $84,600 for a couple, $128,600 for a family of four) would experience the high-dollar increases in out-of-pocket costs, because they wouldn’t get any tax credits if the expanded subsidies expire. And the increase would be particularly high for older enrollees, as their premiums can be three times higher than younger policyholders.

Very low-income enrollees could experience high percentage increases, or go from paying nothing for an insurance plan to paying about 2% to 4% of their income. For those earning under 400% of poverty, the amount they have to pay would still be capped at a percentage of their income — no more than 10% for 2026 — but they’d pay higher percentages than they are paying now.

As we’ve explained before, expanded ACA subsidies, first passed by Democrats in 2021 as part of pandemic relief legislation, are set to expire at the end of the year. Democrats want an extension of those more generous subsidies to be part of legislation to continue funding the federal government, while Republicans have said the issue should be discussed separately at a later time. The impasse has caused a government shutdown that began Oct. 1.

A permanent extension of the more generous subsidies would cost nearly $350 billion over 10 years, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation and Congressional Budget Office.

Under the ACA, subsidies are available for people buying their own insurance on the ACA marketplaces if they earn between 100% and 400% of the federal poverty level (the starting point is 138% in states that adopted the Medicaid expansion). But in 2021, the subsidies were expanded as part of the American Rescue Plan Act. The enhancement increased the financial help enrollees could get, and eliminated the 400% income cap. Those earning above that level could get subsidies, though they’d have to pay 8.5% of their income toward premiums, as KFF has explained.

The poverty level for this year is $15,650 for an individual or $32,150 for a family of four, with the threshold rising as family size increases.

The enhanced subsidies were originally set to last for two years but were extended through the end of 2025 by other legislation passed by Democrats.

Enrollment in ACA marketplace plans has more than doubled from 2020 to 2025, when enrollment hit 24.3 million, about 7% of the U.S. population. The vast majority of enrollees in 2025 — 92% — received subsidies, according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. That means that more than 22 million people could see some increase in their out-of-pocket costs if the enhancement expires, with some dropping coverage as a result.

The CBO estimated that 4.2 million more people will lack health insurance in 2034 if the enhancement expires. The Urban Institute estimated that 4.8 million more would lack insurance next year.

Politicians on both sides have made some accurate, but cherry-picked, claims about who gets, or could potentially get, subsidies and how people could be affected by the pending expiration of the enhancement. We’ll provide context on these talking points and explain what’s known about the income levels of those benefiting from the subsidies.

Democrats’ Claims

In an Oct. 22 press conference, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said that “notices are going out to millions of people right now, as we speak, across the country, frightening them to death when they see that their premiums are about to increase, in some instances by more than $1,000 or $2,000 a month. And more than 90% of the people who receive Affordable Care Act tax credits make approximately $63,000 a year. Think about that. How can you possibly afford premium increases of more than $1,000 or $2,000 a month?”

According to 2024 data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, about 95% of those getting the ACA subsidies earn up to 400% of the poverty level, which is $62,600 for an individual. The income cut-offs are higher for families, though. A family of five earning $150,600 is also at 400% of poverty.

There are some instances where out-of-pocket costs are expected to increase by $1,000 or $2,000 per month, or more. But those increases are expected to affect those earning above 400% of poverty, a group that would no longer get any financial help if the enhanced subsidies expire. The Urban Institute analysis found that on average, the net premium cost for those getting subsidies and earning above 400% of poverty would nearly double, increasing by $4,035 for the year.

But the increase would be particularly high for older enrollees, those in high-premium areas or those earning just over the 400% threshold.

“While virtually all subsidized enrollees will pay more next year to keep the same plan, older middle-income ACA enrollees will see the largest dollar increases in premium payments due to the return of the ‘subsidy cliff,'” KFF’s Shameek Rakshit, a research associate, wrote in an early October post, using a term for what happens to those no longer eligible for subsidies if the enhancement expires.

A graphic shows how an average 60-year-old earning a bit over 400% of poverty faces high out-of-pocket increases. For a 60-year-old making well over 400%, the percentage or dollar increase in out-of-pocket cost would be less, because the enrollee is still required to pay 8.5% of income under the enhanced subsidies. By the time this enrollee earns $180,000, no subsidies are offered, even under the enhancement.

“On average, a 60-year-old couple making $85,000 (or 402% FPL) would see yearly premium payments rise by over $22,600 in 2026, after accounting for an annual premium increase of 18%,” KFF’s late September report on the expiring subsidies said. “This would bring the cost of a benchmark plan to about a quarter of this couple’s annual income, up from 8.5%.”

For those earning under 400% of poverty, the impact also varies, but they’d still receive subsidies if the enhancement expires. The enhancement changed the percentage of income people have to pay before ACA subsidies kick in. These required contributions are on a sliding scale.

For example, those at 300% to 400% of poverty used to pay 9.5% of their income; the enhanced subsidies lowered that to 6% to 8.5%. (See Figure 4 in this report from the Bipartisan Policy Center. Note that Trump administration changes will increase the required contribution percentages in 2026.)

Many of those earning between 100% and 150% of the poverty level could get insurance for $0 out of pocket under the enhancement, but would pay up to about 4% of their income if the more generous subsidies expire. “For example, a family of four with a household income of $45,000 (140% of FPL) with a $0 premium in 2025 will see their premiums increase to $1,607 a year,” the Bipartisan Policy Center report says.

KFF provides other scenarios, and a calculator that can produce more. A young family of four in Alameda, California, earning $93,000 would pay 73% more (about $3,770 for the year) without the enhancement. A 28-year-old earning $35,000 in Leavenworth, Kansas, would pay $1,582 more for the year, a 153% increase, KFF said.

Democrats have highlighted the higher-dollar impact on those earning just over 400% of poverty.

In an Oct. 28 press conference, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said, “In New York, the average family with a plan costing $280 a month will pay $1,700 a month for the same plan next year.” His office had posted a document with several examples of the pending increase for “the average couple making $85,000” in various locations in the state. One, for Plattsburgh, New York, fits Schumer’s description and others show increases of nearly or over $1,000 per month.

Similarly, in the same press conference, Sen. Tammy Baldwin highlighted high increases for people earning a bit over 400% of poverty in her state of Wisconsin. “Yesterday in Wisconsin, my constituents got a sneak peek. For an average family of four, their premiums are skyrocketing by nearly $17,000. For an average 60-year-old couple, they will be paying more than $24,000 for health care next year,” she said.

Those examples come from Gov. Tony Evers and the Wisconsin Office of the Commissioner of Insurance. A family of four earning $130,000 a year (about 405% of poverty) would see annual premium increases of more than $12,000 to more than $24,000, depending on the county they live in. The 60-year-old couple earning $85,658 would see higher increases, up to $33,000 in one county.

A third example from the state shows an annual increase of up to $2,100 for a 26-year-old earning $48,000.

Jeffries has repeatedly framed this as an issue for “working-class” Americans. “The American people know that Democrats are fighting for them, for working-class America, for middle-class America, and for everyday Americans, and that Republicans continue to show up for the wealthy, the well-off, and the well-connected,” he said. Republicans have countered that the ACA subsidies go to the well-off.

Republicans’ Claims

On the Sunday political talk shows on Oct. 19, Republican Sen. Katie Britt said that “millionaires” were getting subsidies. “Do you understand Democrats are actually asking for us to continue premiums that are going to millionaires in some cases? We have got to be more — more responsible with taxpayer dollars,” she said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.” Britt made the same point on CNN’s “State of the Union” that day, saying that she is “willing to have a conversation” about “reforms to these credits” after Congress votes to open the government.

Britt wasn’t talking about people earning a million dollars a year. A spokesperson for the senator referred us to a 2016 CNBC article that said early retirees who had a net worth above $1 million had received subsidies because their annual incomes met the ACA parameters. The program, well before any expansion of subsidies, considers annual income, not net worth, to determine eligibility.

Other Republicans have highlighted the enhanced subsidies’ lack of an income cap. Sen. Lindsey Graham said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Oct. 12 that he wouldn’t vote to extend the enhancement. “If you make over $400,000 you get subsidies for your health care,” he said. Sen. Rand Paul said on “Fox News Sunday” on Oct. 26 that those earning $225,000 could get subsidies.

It’s possible for a family with those incomes to get subsidies, depending on their ages, family size and where they live, but it would likely be rare for a family at the $400,000 level to do so.

Insurance premiums vary by location because of competition, and differences in the risk pool and health care costs. For instance, a fictional family of five living in Manhattan and earning $400,000 likely wouldn’t qualify for subsidies, according to KFF’s subsidy calculator, but if the family lived in central Arizona, they could get nearly $1,200 per month in 2026 with the enhancement — while paying about $2,200 or $2,800 per month out of pocket for their insurance.

“There isn’t a single income that premiums tax credits are phased out at,” Justin Lo, a senior researcher for KFF’s Program on the ACA, told us in an email. “With enhanced premium tax credits, the maximum amount for the subsidized, out-of-pocket premium payment is capped at 8.5% of annual income. So, if a family’s unsubsidized premium is really high—such as for older adults, larger families, or those living in areas with overall high premiums—they are more likely to get a subsidy even with a high income. Additionally, poverty level scales with family size. A larger family with a six-figure income is at a lower level of poverty than a smaller family with the same income.”

While the vast majority of ACA enrollees getting subsidies earn 400% of the poverty level or less, as we said, an estimated 5% of those getting the financial help were above that threshold, according to 2024 open enrollment information from CMS.

Most enrollees — 66% — earned 200% of the poverty level or less.

Those above the 400% level got an average tax credit of $354 per month, solely due to those expanded subsidies.

If the enhanced subsidies were extended, the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that 85% of federal spending for the subsidies next year would go to those earning $150,000 or less, categorized by tax returns. About $1.5 billion, or 5.5% of federal spending, would go to the $200,000 to $500,000 income group. JCT estimates that no money would go to income groups above $500,000.

About 1.6 million ACA marketplace enrollees in 2025 are above 400% of the poverty level (not all get subsidies), and nearly 1 million of those are above 500% (that’s $160,750 for a family of four), according to CMS data compiled by the Bipartisan Policy Center. About another 1 million enrollees haven’t provided income information, “but it is likely they have higher incomes and have not applied for tax credits,” KFF says.

The CMS data doesn’t provide more of a breakdown on income, so we don’t know if families earning upwards of $400,000 are getting subsidies. Jessica Banthin, a senior fellow in the Urban Institute’s health policy division, told us that it would be “extremely unlikely” and only possible with a large family, older parents and high-cost states.

For instance, Banthin was able to make the math work for a family of five with 64-year-old grandparents as the heads of household in the high-premium state of West Virginia. They’d get a tax credit of over $3,000 a month. But “I don’t think that family exists in reality,” Banthin said, “or that many people are getting subsidies at that level of income.”

A family earning that much would have other options, she said, such as employer-based insurance or the small-group market for small-business owners, where they would “probably get a better plan.”

Editor’s note: FactCheck.org does not accept advertising. We rely on grants and individual donations from people like you. Please consider a donation. Credit card donations may be made through our “Donate” page. If you prefer to give by check, send to: FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center, P.O. Box 58100, Philadelphia, PA 19102. 

The post Competing Claims on Who Benefits from ACA Subsidies appeared first on FactCheck.org.

At least 61 people have been killed in 14 U.S. military strikes on boats in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean since early September. President Donald Trump has said he is targeting “narcoterrorists” who threaten American lives with lethal substances, and the administration has told Congress the U.S. is in “armed conflict” with drug cartels operating in South America.

But Democratic Sen. Ruben Gallego of Arizona called the strikes “sanctioned murder.” And without any evidence from the administration for its claims about the cargo or the identities and affiliations of the people on the boats, Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky said the strikes are “extrajudicial killings.”

Some legal experts, meanwhile, have said the U.S. actions were “not lawful.”

Here, we will address what is known about the targets of the strikes, the trafficking of illicit substances from South and Central America to the U.S., and what experts are saying about the legality of the Trump administration’s escalation of the war on drugs.

Who are the targets of the U.S. military strikes?

On the first day of his second term in office, Trump signed an executive order designating drug cartels as “foreign terrorist organizations” who “present an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States.” He declared a national emergency “to deal with those threats.”

Since the summer, the U.S. has been building up its military presence in the Caribbean off the coast of Venezuela, including the deployment of 6,000 sailors and Marines and eight warships, as well as aircraft based in Puerto Rico.

On Sept. 2, Trump announced in a Truth Social post the first strike by his administration on what he said were members of one of the cartels. “Earlier this morning, on my Orders, U.S. Military Forces conducted a kinetic strike against positively identified Tren de Aragua Narcoterrorists,” Trump said. The attack in the Caribbean “occurred while the terrorists were at sea in International waters transporting illegal narcotics, heading to the United States. The strike resulted in 11 terrorists killed in action,” he said in the post, which included black-and-white video of an open, manned boat being blown up.

Trump also said in the post that the cartel operates “under the control” of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. The administration did not provide any details regarding the U.S. military operation, the identities of the people killed, or what specific drugs were on the boat.

The New York Times has tracked the strikes and the number of people killed in each attack.

The Washington Office on Latin America, an advocacy organization, reported the Sept. 2 strike occurred between Venezuela and the islands of Trinidad and Tobago. WOLA also has tracked the subsequent strikes on boats in the Caribbean, near the Dominican Republic, off the coast of Venezuela, and strikes in the eastern Pacific near Colombia.

Colombian President Gustavo Petro said one of the U.S. strikes had killed a fisherman, not a drug cartel member, whom he identified as Alejandro Carranza. Trump responded on Truth Social by calling Petro an “illegal drug leader” and cutting funds to Colombia to battle narcotics trafficking.

More recent U.S. strikes have been announced on social media by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, who posted on Oct. 28 that “four vessels operated by Designated Terrorist Organizations (DTO) trafficking narcotics in the Eastern Pacific” had been hit and “14 narco-terrorists were killed during the three strikes, with one survivor.”

As in the aftermath of the other boat strikes, Hegseth did not provide the identities of the people on the boats, evidence of what drugs they were transporting, or other details. He wrote, “We will track them, we will network them, and then, we will hunt and kill them.”

Hegseth has repeatedly said in his posts that the boats were “transiting along known narco-trafficking routes.” He has also compared drug traffickers to al Qaeda terrorists, saying: “Just as Al Qaeda waged war on our homeland, these cartels are waging war on our border and our people.”

Hegseth said Mexican authorities were looking for the survivor of the Oct. 28 strike. Two survivors of an earlier strike on a boat in October were returned to their home countries rather than held for prosecution in the U.S.

Trump wrote on Truth Social on Oct. 18, “It was my great honor to destroy a very large DRUG-CARRYING SUBMARINE that was navigating towards the United States on a well known narcotrafficking transit route. U.S. Intelligence confirmed this vessel was loaded up with mostly Fentanyl, and other illegal narcotics. There were four known narcoterrorists on board the vessel. Two of the terrorists were killed. … The two surviving terrorists are being returned to their Countries of origin, Ecuador and Colombia, for detention and prosecution.”

We reached out to the White House to ask why the survivors of the boat strikes were not arrested for prosecution in the U.S., but we did not receive a response.

What drugs are being trafficked by boat?

Trump’s Oct. 18 Truth Social post about a vessel in the Caribbean “loaded up with mostly Fentanyl” is a rare instance in which the administration identified specific drugs it said were aboard a targeted boat.

It would also be a rare example of fentanyl, a synthetic opioid, being trafficked by sea, and it is unlikely that it came from Venezuela or Colombia.

The State Department’s 2025 “International Narcotics Control Strategy Report” said the department, “in consultation with the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and other relevant agencies, has identified Mexico as the only significant source of illicit fentanyl and fentanyl analogues significantly affecting the United States during the preceding calendar year.”

A DEA fact sheet says fentanyl is “primarily manufactured in foreign clandestine labs and smuggled into the United States through Mexico.”

According to reporting by the Times, Venezuela “plays essentially no role in the production or smuggling of fentanyl.”

Boats from Venezuela and Colombia do smuggle cocaine through the Caribbean and the Pacific en route to other countries, including the U.S., the Times reported.

A 2023 report by the Government Accountability Office said the State Department “described Venezuela as a preferred drug trafficking route, predominately for moving cocaine to global markets.”

Venezuela’s neighbor, Colombia, “produces about 90 percent of the cocaine powder reaching” the U.S., according to a DEA fact sheet. But “most of the cocaine entering the United States comes through Mexico,” the fact sheet also says.

Both drugs continue to take a toll on American lives. Nearly 73,000 drug overdose deaths in the U.S. in 2023 involved the use of synthetic opioids — primarily fentanyl — though the number declined about 2% from 2022 to 2023, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The number of overdose deaths involving cocaine has risen steadily since 2012 to nearly 30,000 deaths in 2023. Those deaths often involved a combination of cocaine mixed with fentanyl.

Trump has repeatedly overstated the number of drug overdose deaths in the U.S., as we’ve written. Provisional overdose death data from the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics indicated that overdose deaths had declined more than 24% from 105,007 deaths in 2023 to 79,383 in 2024, CDC spokesperson Gabriel Alvarado had told us.

Are the boat strikes lawful?

The Trump administration has not provided many details regarding its legal justification for attacking the boats off the coasts of South America.

Days after the first strike, Hegseth told a reporter, “We have the absolute and complete authority to conduct that. First of all, just the defense of the American people alone.”

The U.S. Naval Institute News reported that the administration “describes the strikes as military self-defense operations under U.S. Title 10,” the code that describes the president’s authority regarding the armed forces.

The administration sent a confidential notice to Congress saying that Trump had decided that the U.S. was engaged in an “armed conflict” with the drug cartels and that suspected drug traffickers are “unlawful combatants,” the Times reported in early October.

The administration also has cited the president’s powers to take defensive actions as commander in chief under Article II of the Constitution. Members of Congress have argued that Article I grants them the power to declare war.

Sen. Paul, in an Oct. 26 interview on Fox News, said, “We haven’t had a briefing, to be clear. We’ve got no information. … The Constitution says that when you go to war, Congress has to vote on it.”

“So far, they have alleged that these people are drug dealers,” Paul said. “No one said their name. No one said what evidence. No one has said whether they’re armed. And we’ve had no evidence presented. So, at this point I would call them extrajudicial killings.”

The same day, in an interview on NBC News’ “Meet the Press,” Sen. Gallego said, “It’s murder. It’s very simple. If this president feels that they’re doing something illegally, he should be using the Coast Guard. If it’s an act of war, then you use our military, and then you come and talk to us first,” he said, referring to Congress. “But this is murder. It’s sanctioned murder.”

On CBS News’ “Face the Nation” on the same day, Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina defended the boat strikes, saying Trump “has all the authority in the world” to order military strikes on drug boats. “This is not murder,” Graham said, “this is protecting America from being poisoned from narco-terrorists coming from Venezuela and Colombia.”

John B. Bellinger III, adjunct senior fellow in international and national security law at the Council on Foreign Relations, told us, “Although the scope of presidential authority to order the use of military force is hotly debated, presidents of both parties have long used military force without congressional approval for a wide array of purposes they deem to be in the national interest. The better legal argument is that President Trump does have authority under Article II of the Constitution to order the strikes.”

But while Trump “arguably has authority under the Constitution to order the strikes, as a matter of international law, the boats are not lawful military targets,” Bellinger, who served as senior associate counsel to President George W. Bush, said in an email.

“There has been no evidence that the boats and their occupants were planning armed attacks against the United States justifying the use of military force in self-defense,” he said. “The Trump Administration has claimed that the United States is in an ‘armed conflict’ with unspecified drug trafficking groups but the drug traffickers’ actions to traffic drugs do not fit the accepted international definition of an armed conflict.

“Most Americans will recognize that comparing drug cartels to Al Qaida is a false comparison. Al Qaida was directly responsible for killing over 3,000 Americans on [Sept. 11, 2001] and in prior terrorist attacks against American soldiers and civilians. Drug cartels commit violent acts and supply drugs that have resulted in the tragic deaths of thousands of Americans, but unlike Al Qaida, these groups are not engaged in an armed conflict with the United States and their members are not combatants,” Bellinger said.

“The goal of these drug cartels is to make money, not to terrorize Americans. The appropriate way to deal with suspected drug traffickers is not to blow them up but rather to arrest and prosecute them, either in the United States or in their own countries,” he said.

Michael Becker, an assistant professor at Trinity College Dublin School of Law, told BBC Verify, “The fact that U.S. officials describe the individuals killed by the U.S. strike as narco-terrorists does not transform them into lawful military targets. … The U.S. is not engaged in an armed conflict with Venezuela or the Tren de Aragua criminal organization.”

Editor’s note: FactCheck.org does not accept advertising. We rely on grants and individual donations from people like you. Please consider a donation. Credit card donations may be made through our “Donate” page. If you prefer to give by check, send to: FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center, P.O. Box 58100, Philadelphia, PA 19102. 

The post Assessing the Facts and Legal Questions About the U.S. Strikes on Alleged Drug Boats appeared first on FactCheck.org.

Defending Chicago in a recent Fox News interview, Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker said it was “not in the top 30” of “big cities” with the highest rates of murder. But in 2024, Chicago had the 15th highest murder rate among U.S. cities with at least 250,000 residents, according to FBI data. It ranked higher if limiting to cities with even larger populations.

Pritzker, a potential Democratic presidential contender in 2028, made that claim on Oct. 23 while being questioned about crime in Chicago by Fox News anchor Bret Baier. Crime in the city has received a lot of attention this year, as President Donald Trump falsely labeled Chicago the world’s “murder capital” and called for sending National Guard troops there over the objection of local officials.

In their sit-down interview last week, Pritzker and Baier were discussing federal immigration enforcement in Chicago when Baier switched to talking about the city’s murder rate.

“Why does Chicago have the highest murder rate of all the big cities?” Baier asked. The governor quickly responded by saying, “We are not in the top 30 in terms of our murder rate.”

He continued, “Our murder rate has been cut in half over the last four years. And every year it’s gone down by double digits.” Pritzker then started to say something about violent crime in Chicago overall when Baier interrupted to provide a visual.

“Here’s a map,” Baier said, before describing a graphic that appeared on screen. “Most populous U.S. cities, 17.47 per 100,000 population. Chicago is No. 1, over Philadelphia, Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, Phoenix, Los Angeles, New York and San Diego.”

But where Chicago ranks depends on the definition of a “big” city, and Fox News used a narrow one.

When we asked, Pritzker’s office did not tell us how he defined “big cities,” or determined that Chicago was not among the 30 of them with the highest murder rates. What viewers also may not have known, because neither Baier nor the graphic made it clear, is that Fox News defined “big cities” as municipalities with a population exceeding 1 million. (Chicago itself is home to roughly 2.7 million people.)

We previously analyzed 2024 FBI data for a September article about crime in Chicago and found that Chicago did have the highest murder rate last year — almost 17.5 incidents per 100,000 people — among those same nine cities. A spokesperson for Fox News told us that the network also relied on the FBI’s data for 2024.

But for our prior story, Jeff Asher, co-founder of the consulting firm AH Datalytics, which compiles an aggregation of crime data provided by law enforcement agencies across the U.S., told us that just using cities with 1 million or more residents was “an arbitrarily tight comparison group.”

When we expanded the list, Chicago ranked 10th out of 37 cities with more than 500,000 inhabitants, and it ranked 15th among 87 cities with more than 250,000.

Asher told us that such comparisons are “usually” made among cities of 250,000 or more. Based on that criteria, St. Louis, Memphis, Baltimore, Detroit and Cleveland topped the list, all with murder rates of between 30 and 54 per 100,000.

However, Chicago was still in the top 30 on that list, contrary to what Pritzker said.

Declining Homicide Rates

Pritzker does have a point about murders in Chicago being down significantly since 2021 — although his office did not provide evidence that the city’s “murder rate,” specifically, “has been cut in half,” as he said.

But we found some support for the claim.

Because the FBI does not have 2021 and 2025 data for Chicago, we turned to homicide figures kept by an independent think tank that tracks crime trends in a sampling of U.S. cities, the Council on Criminal Justice. A CCJ spokesperson told us that homicides and murders are closely related, although homicide includes “some non-murder cases, such as non-negligent manslaughter.” The FBI data also include murder and non-negligent manslaughter.

In late August, CCJ reported that Chicago’s homicide rate through the first six months of 2025, from January to June, was 7 incidents per 100,000 residents. That was down from 12.8 per 100,000 during the same period in 2021, for a decrease of 45% — which is approaching half. 

On a calendar-year basis, CCJ’s figures from its “Year-End 2024 Update” show Chicago’s homicide rate went down from 30.1 in 2021, to 27.5 in 2022, to 23.6 in 2023 and to 21.8 in 2024. (These figures don’t support Pritzker’s claim that the rate has dropped “by double digits” each year.)

We don’t know what Chicago’s final rate will be for 2025, but the city appears to be headed for a significant drop, as the number of reported murders and homicide victimizations had declined by about 29% through Oct. 26, year over year, according to Chicago Police Department data.

Editor’s note: FactCheck.org does not accept advertising. We rely on grants and individual donations from people like you. Please consider a donation. Credit card donations may be made through our “Donate” page. If you prefer to give by check, send to: FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center, P.O. Box 58100, Philadelphia, PA 19102. 

The post Pritzker’s Inaccurate Pushback on Chicago Murder Rate Claim appeared first on FactCheck.org.