Two federal judges in the United States have ruled that the administration of former President Donald Trump cannot halt food assistance for low-income individuals, reinforcing the requirement for the government to utilize contingency funds as a prolonged government shutdown continues.
The rulings, issued on Friday and nearly simultaneously, centered on the future of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which provides critical support to millions of Americans. Approximately 42 million people—nearly one in eight U.S. citizens—rely on SNAP to meet their household food needs. The program faced an imminent suspension on Saturday if no action was taken.
The Trump administration had claimed that, due to Congress’s failure to pass a budget bill in September, it could not fund SNAP and also could not use contingency funds to cover the shortfall. However, both judicial decisions challenged this reasoning.
The first ruling came from U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani in Boston. She set a Monday deadline for the administration to outline how it would fund SNAP at least partially. In her decision, she stated that suspending the program entirely was “unlawful” and confirmed that using contingency funds to support SNAP is legally permissible, as has been done in the past.
“Defendants’ suspension of SNAP payments was based on the erroneous conclusion that the Contingency Funds could not be used to ensure continuation of SNAP payments,” Talwani wrote. “This court has now clarified that Defendants are required to use those Contingency Funds as necessary for the SNAP program.”
This decision followed a petition from 25 Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia, which argued that the federal government lacked the authority to completely suspend food assistance. The plaintiffs contended that the administration’s actions risked harming vulnerable populations.
A similar ruling was issued by U.S. District Judge John McConnell in Rhode Island. A group of cities, nonprofits, and a labor organization had challenged the Trump administration’s pause on SNAP benefits. McConnell echoed the sentiment of his colleague, emphasizing the potential harm caused by the uncertainty surrounding SNAP funding.
“There is no doubt and it is beyond argument that irreparable harm will begin to occur if it hasn’t already occurred in the terror it has caused some people about the availability of funding for food, for their family,” McConnell said during a virtual hearing. He urged the administration to continue funding SNAP through contingency funds and requested an update by Monday.
Never before had SNAP been suspended, as was threatened under the Trump administration. Plaintiffs in both cases argued that the administration’s actions were an attempt to use food aid as political leverage. They noted that prior to the shutdown, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) had indicated it would use emergency funds to maintain SNAP benefits during the shutdown.
However, on October 26, the administration reversed its position, posting a message on the USDA website stating, “Bottom line, the well has run dry. At this time, there will be no benefits issued November 01.” The USDA holds at least $5.25 billion in contingency funds, allocated by Congress for use when necessary to carry out program operations.
While previous government shutdowns have led to service disruptions, the Trump administration had pledged to use the situation to reduce government employment and programs it deemed unnecessary. As of now, the shutdown has lasted 31 days, with Democrats and Republicans locked in a dispute over the passage of a budget bill to keep the government operating.
Democrats aim to include healthcare concerns in the legislation, while Republicans have refused to negotiate on the issue until a continuing resolution maintaining current spending levels is passed.
On Friday, top Trump officials reiterated their stance that they could not legally access the SNAP contingency funds. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins told reporters, “By law, contingency funds can only flow when the underlying fund is flowing.”
Democrats welcomed the rulings and criticized the administration’s approach. Senator Amy Klobuchar stated, “The administration is choosing not to feed Americans in need, despite knowing that it is legally required to do so.”
English 
Arabic 