Consent for Protest

Is it ethical to turn SNAP recipients into protesters against Trump against their will?

Lining up for food during the shutdown.

How ethical is it to make children go without food for a political fight without any consent?

For every person talking about senators “caving” to Trump—you are not getting call after call about hungry children back home. If your voicemails were filled with people pleading for food, your attitude on “caving” would change if you could prevent that hunger. If a progressive screams about Schumer f’cking up without giving consent to protest serious thought, we must discuss ethics in political strategy—now.

Informed Consent

It is immoral enough that shutdowns injure federal employees, putting them into difficult financial situations and creating unwarranted family stress. But within the civil service culture there has been for decades an understanding that shutdowns are always possible. These are never a surprise, giving workers time to plan and save to get through one. Then, at the end, federal employees will be paid. So, while powerless to prevent shutdowns and often forced to work without pay, it is, sadly, a hazard people knowingly accept when swearing their oath to the Constitution as civil servants. And we should thank them for their service.

For the rest of us, a shutdown presents a range of inconveniences we do not choose, from air travel reductions to closed national parks. However, Social Security checks go out and essential functions continue. But the trauma Trump inflicts on people receiving SNAP is different. Accepting SNAP benefits is not a political decision, but one made for survival. There is no history of SNAP being cut off during a shutdown. This is new ground to fight on, and people on SNAP did not sign up to fight in the first place.

The government shutdown is not part of some organized civil rights movement where poor people have chosen to endure hardship and violence because they believe in a cause and see how their sacrifice matters. If you were on the bridge at Selma, it was because you wanted to be on that bridge, on that day, knowing the risks. A strategy that relies on people unwillingly enduring the loss of SNAP benefits is akin to dropping a person onto that bridge without consent to watch them get beaten for the cause.

For all the calls on Democrats to do more, I never hear much of what that “more” is. “Do not cave to Trump” is about as far as most get. The sad fact is there is little for Democrats to do given our Constitution, and this shutdown resolution likely got as far as it could go—ethically. Let us review what was gained by holding on until now—and keep in mind Democrats’ only power comes from how Republicans in the Senate hide behind the filibuster to avoid challenging Trump.

1. Republicans would not agree to any ACA funding to get Democratic Senate support for funding, so Republicans closed government instead.

2. Trump wanted to lay off federal workers and not give back pay.

3. Americans have seen how much their insurance bills will increase, knowing the Republicans oppose ACA funding.

4. Democrats had a very successful election night, based in no small part to voters reacting against the Republican shutdown.

5. Republicans rejected an extremely reasonable one year, kick-the-can ACA extension to reopen the government.

6. Trump then began starving children to get his way. He went out of his way to do so despite having funding to continue the program.

7. Trump then went to the Supreme Court to ensure he could keep starving children to get his way.

8. The House of Representatives must now go back into session to pass new Senate legislation. Adelita Grijalva will be sworn in to office and signing the discharge petition, so the Epstein files are in play this year.

9. The senate funding compromise fully protects federal workers, restores SNAP benefits, and expires at the end of January 2026.

In short, as the memes say, Trump threatened your children with starvation so he could take their health care away. The shutdown revealed the violence inherent in the system for many more people to see—which is a success for non-violent protests.

Maybe, but probably not

The full impact of SNAP cuts had not hit nationwide, so maybe the Democrats could have held on for a few days and the court cases could have favored SNAP recipients. But who could trust the Supreme Court to make poor people receiving SNAP whole versus supporting Trump, who eagerly sacrifices his own voters to hunger to advance the MAGA agenda?

Democrats were at risk of being as callous as Trump by allowing hunger just to keep up the fight. I do believe there was more consensus in the Democratic caucus for this move—the eight “defecting” senators are retiring or are otherwise insulated and able to take the heat from the left for their colleagues to end this shutdown.

Audacity has limits

While audacity is essential for social change, we must break off a fight when the cost rises above any gain. Democrats were in danger of a moral high ground collapse as Trump would happily let people starve. To assert that this shutdown hunger is for the poor’s own good—to protect health care and defeat fascism—without their consent for the fight is paternalism, not progressivism. We must get informed consent from everyone, from rich to poor, before sending a soul out to protest.

Pundits will say that voters will see Democrats as ineffective if they capitulate. But look at why Democrats “caved”—starving children. Now, some voters will cheer that Trump was tough and to hell with poor people. I do not want to be tough, and, as my reader, I believe you do not want to be tough either. And, call me old-fashioned or naïve, I believe most Americans are appalled by Trump’s eagerness to starve children—when they hear the story. So, we should spend less time berating each other for “caving” and more time spreading the truth about what Donald Trump and MAGA revealed during this shutdown.

We have through January

The funding agreement runs through January. Now, we have months to plan with new insight into what Trump will do. We have time to reach out to the people on SNAP and discuss what they are willing and able to do in a new crisis. States and localities can now reallocate more resources toward alleviating hunger, now understanding how Trump will act. Progressives nationwide could burst food banks at the seams in preparation and find new grassroots means to ensure no one is hungry. We can build barricades.

However, our lesson from this “caving” must be how real social change is impossible if we do not have consent from those who may be injured along the way for what must be done. Just powers are derived from the consent of the governed. If we lose sight of this, progressivism is no better than MAGA.