Judge Orders Trump Admin to Fully Fund SNAP/ Newslooks/ WASHINGTON/ J. Mansour/ Morning Edition/ A federal judge in Rhode Island has ordered the Trump administration to fully fund November’s SNAP benefits. The decision, prompted by lawsuits from cities and nonprofits, follows an earlier ruling blocking total cuts. The administration has appealed, but the court mandated expedited action.
SNAP Funding Court Order Quick Looks
- Judge John McConnell Jr. ordered full November SNAP payments.
- The Trump administration had planned only 65% of benefits.
- Over 42 million Americans rely on SNAP, most living in poverty.
- Court criticized administration’s failure to consider real-world impact.
- Vice President JD Vance condemned the ruling as “absurd.”
- The ruling follows earlier legal action blocking total benefit halt.
- Administration claims Congress must appropriate full funding.
- Legal appeals ongoing; advocates vow to continue the fight.
Judge Orders Trump Admin to Fully Fund SNAP
Deep Look
A federal judge has directed the Trump administration to fully fund November benefits for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), intervening amid growing public backlash over attempts to slash food aid during a prolonged government shutdown. The decision, issued by U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell Jr. in Rhode Island, comes after weeks of legal wrangling and policy uncertainty affecting tens of millions of low-income Americans.
The judge’s ruling compels the administration to ensure full disbursement of food assistance funds by Friday. Though recipients may not see immediate updates on the debit cards they use to purchase groceries, the ruling marks a major legal pushback against the administration’s earlier decision to allocate only 65% of SNAP benefits for the month.
The legal challenge was brought by a coalition of cities and nonprofit organizations, which argued that the partial funding plan would deprive many households of any assistance at all. Judge McConnell sided with the plaintiffs, stating that the federal government had failed to weigh the significant harm the decision would cause.
“They knew there would be a long delay in distributing partial payments,” said McConnell in his ruling from the bench, “and they ignored the real-life consequences for those dependent on this support.”
This latest court order follows a previous decision last week by McConnell and another judge that blocked the Trump administration from canceling SNAP benefits entirely for November. In response, administration lawyers promptly filed appeals to both rulings.
Vice President JD Vance criticized the court’s decision, calling it “absurd” and arguing that such rulings interfere with executive decision-making during a shutdown. “If Democrats want SNAP funded, they need to reopen the government,” Vance said during a press conference, asserting that courts should not dictate how the administration prioritizes limited resources.
Originally, the administration had signaled it would halt all SNAP funding for November unless the shutdown was resolved. However, federal courts ordered the government to draw from an emergency reserve of over $4.6 billion to cover the benefits, which typically cost between $8.5 billion and $9 billion monthly. Despite the court’s instructions, the administration refused to use additional available funds, arguing that only Congress can authorize full program funding and that remaining reserves were being preserved for other child hunger initiatives.
Judge McConnell was sharply critical of that choice, warning that “16 million children are immediately at risk of going hungry” without a complete disbursement. He added, “This should never happen in America.”
An attorney representing the federal government, Tyler Becker, insisted that the administration had complied by initiating partial payments. But McConnell rejected that stance, emphasizing that the court’s previous ruling required “expeditious and efficient” action by Wednesday—standards the administration had not met.
Kristin Bateman, attorney for the plaintiffs, suggested that the administration’s delay was politically motivated. “What they’re really doing is using hunger as a tool in a partisan standoff,” Bateman said.
The situation grew more convoluted throughout the week. On Monday, the administration announced it would only fund 50% of benefits, citing the time it takes for states to update systems and distribute funds. The next day, President Trump seemed to threaten to block all SNAP benefits unless Democrats reopened the government. By Wednesday, the administration adjusted its stance again, informing states they could disburse 65% of benefits.
Due to federal benefit formulas, those receiving less than the maximum benefit would face disproportionately steep cuts. Some individuals could have received as little as $16 for the entire month. Families and individuals who depend on SNAP to feed themselves were left in limbo.
Carmel Scaife, a 56-year-old Milwaukee woman who is unable to work due to a car accident, expressed concern about how the cuts would impact her. Typically receiving $130 per month in SNAP, Scaife explained that without full benefits, she would be forced to use part of her Social Security income for food.
“That’ll take away from the bills that I pay,” she said. “But that’s the only way I can survive.”
Though court-ordered, it remains unclear how quickly the full benefits will be delivered. Government filings estimate that it can take weeks—or even months—for states to implement funding changes. SNAP recipients typically wait several days before funds appear on their cards.
As for next steps, the administration’s appeal is in motion, but such court orders are rarely overturned. Advocates say they are prepared to continue the legal fight.
“We shouldn’t have to force the President to care for his citizens,” said Skye Perryman, CEO of Democracy Forward, which supported the lawsuit. “But we will do whatever is necessary to protect people and communities.”
You must Register or Login to post a comment.