Two federal judges have ruled that the Trump administration cannot suspend food assistance programs for low-income Americans, ordering the government to use contingency funds to continue distributing benefits amid the ongoing US government shutdown. The rulings directly address the fate of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which supports roughly 42 million people nationwide.

---

Background: Threat to SNAP Benefits

The Trump administration had announced that SNAP payments would be halted entirely due to Congress failing to pass a budget bill in September. Officials argued that contingency funds could not legally be used to maintain benefits during a government shutdown.

• SNAP assists one in eight Americans with monthly food aid.
• The threat to suspend SNAP marked an unprecedented move in US history.

However, plaintiffs argued that the suspension was unlawful and appeared designed to use food aid as a political lever in negotiations with Democrats over the federal budget.

---

Federal Court Rulings

Boston Ruling: Judge Indira Talwani

US District Judge Indira Talwani ruled that:

• Suspending SNAP entirely was unlawful.
• The government is authorized to use contingency funds to continue SNAP payments.
• The administration had erred in concluding it could not access these funds.

“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.

The ruling responded to a petition from 25 Democrat-led states and the District of Columbia, who argued the federal government could not halt food aid.

---

Rhode Island Ruling: Judge John McConnell

US District Judge John McConnell issued a parallel decision in Rhode Island, following a challenge by cities, nonprofits, and labor organizations.

• McConnell emphasized the irreparable harm caused by suspending food aid.
• He ordered the administration to continue SNAP payments using contingency funds and requested an update from the government on Monday.

---

Trump Administration Response

President Trump posted on Truth Social in response:

• Claimed government lawyers believed accessing contingency funds was illegal.
• Acknowledged the court rulings conflicted with his administration’s position.
• Stated he instructed lawyers to seek clarification from the courts on legal authority to fund SNAP.

“I do NOT want Americans to go hungry just because the Radical Democrats refuse to do the right thing and REOPEN THE GOVERNMENT,” Trump wrote.

---

SNAP Contingency Funds

• The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) has at least $5.25 billion in contingency funds for emergency SNAP payments.
• Congress allocated these funds to be used when “necessary to carry out program operations.”
• Past government shutdowns allowed for continued SNAP payments using these contingency funds.

Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins reiterated that, in her view, contingency funds could only be accessed when underlying funds are flowing, a position contested by the federal courts.

---

Political and Humanitarian Implications

The ongoing shutdown, now in its 31st day, has intensified partisan disagreements:

• Democrats: Seek healthcare provisions included in a continuing resolution before passing a budget.
• Republicans: Refuse to negotiate on healthcare until a budget is approved at current spending levels.

The court rulings have been praised by Democrats and critics of the administration. Senator Amy Klobuchar stated:

“The administration is choosing not to feed Americans in need, despite knowing that it is legally required to do so.”

Experts warn that prolonged suspension of SNAP could have devastating consequences for millions of families, increasing food insecurity nationwide.

---

Conclusion

Federal court decisions have reaffirmed that SNAP benefits must continue during a government shutdown, requiring the Trump administration to access contingency funds. The rulings protect millions of Americans from immediate hunger, even as political gridlock continues in Washington, highlighting the legal safeguards surrounding critical social welfare programs.