Two federal judges ruled that the Trump administration cannot halt food assistance for 42 million Americans due to a government shutdown. This decision came as benefits were due for distribution, and there is concern that millions may struggle to buy groceries this month.
In their judgments, the judges from Massachusetts and Rhode Island found that the USDA’s attempt to freeze benefits from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) was unlawful. They stated the department should use a $6 billion contingency fund to cover part of the almost $8 billion expected for this month.
U.S. District Judge McConnell from Rhode Island emphasized the critical necessity of these funds. He remarked, “The government shutdown doesn’t eliminate SNAP; it just removes the funding.” He warned that failure to provide these funds could cause serious harm to families relying on them.
SNAP benefits support individuals whose incomes fall below 130% of the federal poverty line. Notably, over one in eight Americans rely on this program, and among them, 39% are children. Research indicates that SNAP recipients depend on this assistance for a significant portion of their groceries—62% on average, and those in severe poverty even more so.
Judge Talwani from Massachusetts encouraged the administration to utilize the contingency funds and explore other financial sources to ensure benefits are distributed promptly.
After the ruling, Trump expressed confusion about the legal authority to use the funds. He noted conflicting court opinions and pledged to seek clarification quickly. Despite this, some observers, such as attorney and activist Miles Mogulescu, pointed out that only a few days ago, the administration had supported using these funds.
Historically, the USDA had indicated continuity of core nutrition programs during a shutdown. On the eve of the recent shutdown, they posted a plan stating essential nutrition programs would continue. Yet, they later issued a memo retracting this pledge, claiming the funds were unavailable due to the shutdown.
Experts argue that the administration has the means to ensure food assistance during a crisis. Sharon Parrott of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities asserted that even a small delay in benefits would be better than leaving families without support.
Critics of the administration argue that it is using the shutdown as a tool to pressure Democrats. Some have pointed out that terminating SNAP during this period is a policy choice, showcasing a deliberate effort to leverage hardship for political gain.
In summary, the courts have highlighted the importance of ensuring food assistance goes uninterrupted, especially during vulnerable times. The ongoing developments reflect deeper issues surrounding government funding and the safety net for American families.
Source link
