Mario H. Lopez is president of the Hispanic Leadership Fund, a public policy advocacy organization that promotes liberty, opportunity and prosperity for all Americans.
Among Congress’ 2023 action items is the massive Farm Bill, legislation that is reauthorized every five years. The bill includes federal assistance for low-income families like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the principal method by which the U.S. government helps low-income families buy food.
As is necessary in a sweeping program that covers 41 million Americans, there are important rules about what is covered and what is not. And while some restrictions are necessary and uncontroversial—for example SNAP benefits cannot be used to purchase beer, wine, liquor, cigarettes, or tobacco—other rules create unnecessary and illogical barriers for the very people the program is meant to help.
One such barrier with SNAP benefits is the restriction on purchasing hot foods.
The nearly 50 year-old rule prohibits SNAP participants from purchasing foods like rotisserie chicken, hot sandwiches, oatmeal, or soup. When the restriction was put in place decades ago, Americans mostly prepared their meals at home from scratch and hot foods were not as prevalent or accessible. But today, the flexibility of being able to purchase hot meals at grocery and convenience stores is something that the majority of Americans benefit from and may even often count on.
This restriction on hot foods can be especially burdensome for working families who may not have the time or resources to prepare meals at home. For example, a working mom may be able to purchase a package of raw chicken from the grocery store using her SNAP benefits, but she cannot purchase a rotisserie chicken, which would be a quick and easy meal solution for her family. She may be able to pick up a cold sandwich from the convenience store on the way home from work, but she cannot have it toasted, which limits her options for what might be a warm and satisfying meal.
The hot foods restriction is not a cost issue—important for those rightfully concerned with the effects of government spending. SNAP benefits can be used to purchase prepared cold foods—in many cases the exact same food—with the only difference being the food’s temperature at the precise moment of purchased.
Indeed, retailers are forced to find ways to deal with the distinctions that are downright silly, awkward, or even wasteful. For example, most convenience stores these days have microwave ovens for customer use and have to warn customers that the sandwich they are picking up cannot be purchased with SNAP benefits if they choose to heat it up before purchase. Similarly, soup, of all things, must be bought cold. In situations where there is no sign, or if the customer doesn’t notice it, mistakenly heats up an item, and can only pay for their food with SNAP, then the store cannot resell the food and has little choice but to throw out the item.
Additionally, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which administers the SNAP program, already recognizes the importance of hot foods during times of natural disasters, such as hurricanes, tornadoes, or wildfires, and has allowed for the purchase of hot foods with SNAP benefits during those times. This waiver shows that removing the restriction on hot foods can make a meaningful difference in the lives of SNAP families.
The hot food restriction is a cumbersome regulation that gratuitously takes away flexibility and convenience for families at a time when we are facing record levels of food insecurity. In some cases people who rely on SNAP benefits may not have the time to cook or may even lack access to a kitchen. Of the 22 million families on SNAP, 70 percent have children, are elderly, or have disabilities.
As president of the Hispanic Leadership Fund, a non-partisan advocacy organization, I witness all too often how both partisanship and government bureaucracy get in the way of even basic, uncontroversial policy. Congress has an opportunity to address this and remove the unnecessary restriction on hot foods in the 2023 Farm Bill. Modernizing the SNAP program is a simple fix that would make a real difference to participating families who are already facing challenges putting food on the table. And, even in an age where extreme partisanship and divisiveness seemingly plague every aspect of legislation, common-sense solutions, even if modest compared to larger issues, can serve as important building blocks to help the country at large.
A golden tray sits on the Resolute Desk as President Donald Trump speaks during an announcement on American nuclear innovation in the Oval Office at the White House on July 24, 2026, in Washington, D.C. Trump is signing multiple executive orders targeting the nuclear energy sector and easing rules for new reactors and nuclear fuel supply chains.
Trump’s hubris rivals the fallen heroes of ancient Greek mythology
In January, the New York Times asked President Donald Trump if there were any limits on his global powers.
“Yeah,” the president responded, “there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”
That was eight months ago, but fortunately Christopher Nolan’s blockbuster adaptation of “The Odyssey” has made ancient Greek literature newly relevant. Before that window closes, I’d like to talk about hubris.
Today, the term mostly means excessive pride or arrogance. That’s part of what the Greeks meant by it too, but the meaning was a bit richer and more specific. Hubris was an insolent or outrageous act that offended the gods, often because the transgressor was claiming abilities or authorities that solely belonged to supreme beings.
Nolan renamed and slightly modified the concept of xenia for the film, calling it “Zeus’ law.” In the director’s telling, mortals should follow the rules laid out by the gods, specifically the requirement to treat strangers with respect lest they be gods in disguise.
In a sense, hubris is the opposite, or at least the rejection, of xenia. The hubris of the suitors, and at times Odysseus himself, invites punishment by the gods and their mortal instruments.
Which brings me back to Donald Trump. His claim that there are no constraints on his personal power to dictate events on the global stage was one of the greatest expressions of hubris ever uttered by a political leader.
Trump’s claim was obviously false when he made it.
He vowed that he could end the Russia-Ukraine war in 24 hours. He’s proved powerless to make that happen. If he had divine powers to work his will, why would he have balked at implementing his tariffs so often that Wall Street adopted the “TACO trade” term for his deals? “TACO” stands for “Trump always chickens out.”
And why would Trump have made so many embarrassing concessions to China — from rescinding tariffs on Chinese goods to allowing them to buy crucial and incredibly valuable computer chips?
But Trump saw his success at capturing Venezuelan strongman Nicolas Maduro as proof of his ability to launch missiles to the same effect as Zeus’ lightning bolts. Trump believed he was the most powerful man who ever lived.
This is no exaggeration. In March, when the Iran invasion seemed successful, Trump gave a document penned by“Presidential Historian David King” to New York Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan purporting to prove that Trump was “the most powerful person to have EVER walked this planet.” King was, in fact, a businessman and occasional caddy for legendary golfer Gary Player.
King compared Trump favorably to many of history’s most powerful, and often heinous, figures: Alexander the Great, Attila the Hun, William the Conqueror, Napoleon Bonaparte, Joseph Stalin, Genghis Khan, Mao Tse Tung, Adolf Hitler and Vladimir Lenin. Many of these men thought they were the most powerful person in the world, too. And many were defeated precisely because they believed it.
At least Napoleon and Hitler had a string of truly impressive victories before they learned the folly of hubris. The limits on Trump’s power have been exposed by far less august forces than the combined might of the allies in World War II or the fearsome Russian winter.
Iran is a comparatively middling power. But the regime’s ability to absorb punishment while imposing its will on the Strait of Hormuz has proved to be a greater constraint on Trump’s power than his morality or mind. We should note that, at least rhetorically, his morality has not proved much of a constraint. He has repeatedly promised to destroy Iranian “civilization” if the regime refuses to capitulate.
But they haven’t — and won’t anytime soon — because the regime’s tolerance for pain far outstrips Trump’s. The combined fear of skyrocketing oil prices, outrage of Gulf state potentates, diminishing weapon supplies and domestic unpopularity is doing the work that international law, congressional oversight and the collective opinion of foreign policy experts can’t or won’t do.
If I considered Trump more heroic than reason and facts could allow, I would say his Sisyphean predicament has the whiff of Greek tragedy to it. Trump is vexed by the fact that the Iranians won’t honor deals or ratify his countless premature claims of victory — giving new meaning to his vow that his presidency would make people tired of winning. It’s almost like they’re out-Trumping Trump.
Things might have gone better if he’d heeded that great Greek tragedian Sophocles: “For Zeus utterly abhors the boasts of a proud tongue.”
____
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.