“The level of unrest that could need a response is zero” can you clarify what you mean by this? Do you mean the risk that unrest could grow to such a level that would be sufficient to require a response is zero?
Would you say for instance that the national guard cannot be justified in response to any riot, no matter how bad?
Even though Trump's mob was intent on murdering rival politicians, and there were casualties including death, he completely failed to do what was needed to quell the disturbance until it was far too late that time.
How theoretical is that?
>no need for a federal response to the things happening right now,
That's because it's only Wednesday.
If Trump goes through with his plan to allow food assistance to go unfunded using the excuse "the well has run dry", the 40 million who depend on it might have "some" dissent that they would like to vent directly.
No President of any party has ever dropped the ball bad enough to let that happen ever.
Certainly not with both houses of Congress dominated by supporters in the same party.
If he really wanted to keep food supplies coming in for low-income citizens, plus the farmers who greatly benefit themselves, all Trump has to do is say so and Congress can have that one item on his desk to sign the same day, no strings attached.
Now unfortunately overnight, the entire island of Jamaica is devastated by dire needs, most countries are not prosperous enough to help though. I can't imagine the USA doesn't still have the financial leadership ability to be able to ease more suffering than anyone else. It would be just heartless not to.
Well with the nutritional assistance that recipients in the USA have been desperately depending on for more than 50 years, that could be a different story.
If they let it run out for Americans Friday as threatened.