Courts Force Trump Administration To Resume SNAP Payments Amid Shutdown Chaos
By ESTHER McWILLIS-IKHIDE
TWO separate federal court rulings on Friday ordered President Donald Trump’s administration to immediately resume payments under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) — the United States’ largest food aid initiative — despite the ongoing government shutdown that had threatened to suspend benefits for millions of low-income Americans.
The rulings, handed down by U.S. District Judges Indira Talwani (Massachusetts) and John J. McConnell (Rhode Island), mandate that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) use emergency reserve funds to keep the $8 billion-a-month program afloat. However, the judges left some discretion for the administration to decide whether to partially or fully fund November’s benefits, creating uncertainty for beneficiaries who rely on SNAP to feed their families.
SNAP at the Center of a Political and Legal Firestorm
The SNAP program — serving roughly one in eight Americans — became the latest flashpoint in Washington’s political deadlock, with the USDA announcing plans to halt payments starting November 1 due to funding constraints caused by the federal shutdown.
Friday’s twin court orders temporarily averted what many advocacy groups had warned could become a national hunger crisis. SNAP, formerly known as food stamps, provides critical monthly support to tens of millions of Americans — including families with children, seniors, and veterans — helping them buy groceries amid rising living costs.
Democratic officials from 25 states and the District of Columbia sued the Trump administration, arguing that it had both the authority and legal duty to draw from the program’s $5 billion contingency fund to keep payments going. They also pointed to an additional $23 billion in emergency funds that could be tapped under existing law.
Judges Rebuke USDA’s Justification for Funding Freeze
In Providence, Rhode Island, Judge McConnell ruled from the bench that the USDA must immediately utilize emergency reserves to continue SNAP payments, insisting that the agency also honor previously approved work requirement waivers for vulnerable populations such as veterans, older adults, and disabled persons.
Similarly, in Boston, Judge Talwani issued a written opinion declaring the payment suspension “unlawful,” stating that the USDA had misinterpreted its authority to use contingency funds.
“This court has clarified that defendants are required to use those contingency funds as necessary for the SNAP program,” she wrote, directing the government to report by Monday whether it would fully restore November benefits.
While the rulings provide temporary relief, they also acknowledge logistical hurdles — the process of reloading SNAP debit cards typically takes up to a week in many states, meaning millions could still experience delays in accessing their benefits.
Advocates Welcome the Ruling — But Warn of Lingering Uncertainty
Across the nation, food banks, advocacy groups, and state agencies exhaled in cautious relief as news of the rulings spread. Yet many underscored that the reprieve is temporary and incomplete, given the administration’s option to fund the program only partially.
“Thousands of nonprofit food banks, pantries, and other organizations can avoid the impossible burden that would have resulted if SNAP benefits had been halted,” said Diane Yentel, president of the National Council of Nonprofits, one of the plaintiffs in the Rhode Island case.
But for individuals like Kristle Johnson, a 32-year-old single mother of three in Florida, uncertainty remains. Her $994 monthly SNAP benefit barely covers groceries as it is.
“Now I have to deal with someone who wants to get rid of everything I have to keep my family afloat,” she said, referring to Trump’s policies.
Similarly, Cynthia Kirkhart, CEO of the Facing Hunger Food Bank in West Virginia, said her organization would maintain extended hours as families brace for delays.
“What we know, unless the administration is magical, is nothing is going to happen tomorrow,” she said.
Political Divisions Deepen Over Food Security
At a press conference in Washington, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins defended the administration’s stance, claiming that the reserve funds could not sustain SNAP for long and blaming Democrats for “holding the country hostage” by refusing to lift a Senate filibuster.
Meanwhile, Democrats in Congress hailed the rulings as a moral victory and proof that the administration’s decision to pause benefits violated both law and compassion.
“The administration is choosing not to feed Americans in need, despite knowing it is legally required to do so,” said Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), the ranking member of the Senate Agriculture Committee.
A measure to extend SNAP funding during the shutdown failed earlier this week amid partisan gridlock.
Millions of Lives in the Balance
SNAP currently serves over 41 million Americans, with nearly two-thirds of recipients being families with children. To qualify, a family of four must earn no more than $31,000 annually after allowable expenses.
The court rulings have prevented what many warned could become a humanitarian crisis — but for now, the program’s future still hangs in the balance.
“The court’s ruling protects millions of families, seniors, and veterans from being used as leverage in a political fight and upholds the principle that no one in America should go hungry,” said Skye Perryman, CEO of Democracy Forward, applauding the Rhode Island decision.
As the legal and political battles continue, one thing remains clear: the struggle to keep America’s poorest fed has become another casualty of Washington’s dysfunction, with millions watching anxiously to see whether their next meal will still be guaranteed.
