Federal Courts Block Trump’s Attempt to Suspend Food Aid During Shutdown
In a landmark decision, US courts ruled that former President Donald Trump’s administration unlawfully sought to suspend critical food assistance programs during the 2018-2019 government shutdown. The ruling reinforces legal protections for vulnerable populations and sets a precedent limiting executive power over social safety nets.
Why Trump Tried to Halt SNAP Benefits
The conflict arose during the longest government shutdown in US history (35 days), triggered by a funding dispute over border wall construction. As agencies ran out of money, Trump’s USDA moved to withhold February 2019 Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits—threatening food security for 40 million low-income Americans, including children and seniors.
Advocacy groups sued, arguing the Food and Nutrition Act requires uninterrupted SNAP funding, even during appropriations lapses.
Court’s Decision: A Win for Vulnerable Families
Federal judges unanimously rejected the administration’s stance, ordering the USDA to release benefits early. Key takeaways:
– Legal Mandate: SNAP’s funding structure ensures continuity during shutdowns.
– Executive Limits: Presidents cannot override statutory obligations for political leverage.
– Human Impact: The ruling averted a hunger crisis for millions.
“The administration can’t gamble with people’s survival,” said MAZON president Abby Leibman.
Broader Implications for Future Shutdowns
The case has lasting consequences:
1. Precedent Set: Future administrations cannot unilaterally cut essential aid.
2. Judicial Role: Courts emerge as arbiters in shutdown-related disputes.
3. Political Fallout: Highlights risks of using welfare programs as bargaining chips.
Partisan Reactions
- Democrats: Praised the decision. Sen. Bernie Sanders called it “a moral victory.”
- Republicans: Defended Trump’s cost-cutting rationale, with Rep. Jim Jordan blaming “budget dysfunction.”
Future of SNAP and Shutdowns
While the ruling protects SNAP during funding gaps, advocates demand permanent reforms to prevent recurring crises. “Shutdowns shouldn’t jeopardize food security,” stressed Joel Berg of Hunger Free America.
