Federal Judge Orders Trump Administration to Fully Fund SNAP Amid Shutdown, Citing Risk of Widespread Hunger

WASHINGTON — A federal judge in the District of Columbia issued a sharp rebuke to the Trump administration on Thursday, ordering the full funding of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits for November to avert what he called a potential humanitarian crisis for 42 million Americans reliant on food stamps. The ruling, which the administration immediately vowed to appeal, highlights the deepening fallout from the longest government shutdown in U.S. history, now in its 35th day.

In a 28-page opinion, Judge Charles R. Breyer rejected the Department of Agriculture’s plan to provide only partial SNAP payments from a $5 billion emergency reserve, deeming it insufficient and unlawful. “The failure to fully fund SNAP in November risks leaving millions of vulnerable Americans — including the elderly, disabled, and children — without adequate food assistance,” Judge Breyer wrote. He emphasized that the shutdown, triggered by disputes over border wall funding, does not absolve the government of its statutory obligations under the Food and Nutrition Act.

The decision stems from a lawsuit filed by advocacy groups, including the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the Food Research & Action Center, arguing that the administration’s partial funding violated federal law requiring timely, full benefits. SNAP, commonly known as food stamps, supports low-income households with an average monthly benefit of $135 per person. With reserves dwindling, plaintiffs warned of mass hunger if payments lapsed.

The administration’s response was swift and defiant. White House press secretary Sean Spicer announced an appeal, framing the ruling as judicial overreach. “This decision ignores the realities of a shutdown and ties the hands of the executive branch in managing limited resources,” Mr. Spicer said. Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue echoed this, noting the department had already disbursed early February benefits to mitigate gaps, but acknowledged the reserve’s exhaustion could halt future payments without congressional action.

Judge Breyer’s opinion took particular aim at President Trump’s recent Truth Social post, where he suggested the shutdown’s impact on SNAP was exaggerated by Democrats. “Such statements undermine public confidence and appear to dismiss the very real hardships faced by beneficiaries,” the judge wrote, citing the post as evidence of the administration’s cavalier attitude toward the program’s urgency.

The shutdown, now surpassing the 1995-96 record of 21 days, has furloughed 800,000 federal workers and disrupted services from national parks to food inspections. SNAP’s vulnerability stems from its reliance on annual appropriations; without a budget deal, the program risks collapse. Advocacy groups estimate that without full November funding, over 2 million children could lose access to meals, exacerbating food insecurity rates already at 12 percent nationwide.

Republicans in Congress, led by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, blamed Democrats for refusing wall funding, while House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi called the ruling “a victory for humanity.” “No American should go hungry because of the president’s vanity project,” she said. Bipartisan talks continue, but with no breakthrough, the appeal could prolong uncertainty.

Legal experts view the decision as a firm assertion of judicial authority amid executive-branch defiance. “This isn’t just about SNAP; it’s a reminder that shutdowns have human costs courts won’t ignore,” said Neal Katyal, a former acting solicitor general. As the appeal heads to the D.C. Circuit, the case underscores the shutdown’s toll, with economists warning of broader economic drag if unresolved.