On Thursday, November 6, 2025, a federal judge delivered a sharp rebuke to the Trump administration, ordering it to fully fund the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) for the month of November by Friday. The ruling, issued by U.S. District Chief Judge John J. McConnell Jr., comes amidst a contentious government shutdown that has left millions of Americans—especially children—at immediate risk of hunger and has sparked intense debate over the responsibilities of the federal government in times of crisis.
"People have gone without for too long, not making payments to them for even another day is simply unacceptable," Judge McConnell declared in his ruling, as reported by ABC News. His words underscored the urgency of the situation: since November 1, SNAP benefits have lapsed for the first time in U.S. history, leaving 42 million Americans—including 16 million children—without critical food assistance. Judge McConnell was unequivocal: "Without SNAP funding for the month of November, 16 million children are immediately at risk of going hungry. This should never happen in America."
The roots of the crisis stretch back to late October, when a coalition of cities and nonprofit organizations filed suit against USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins, seeking to force the government to pay SNAP benefits after Congress failed to appropriate funds for November. The Trump administration, however, refused to use available contingency funding to keep SNAP afloat—a marked departure from the approach taken during the 2019 shutdown, when emergency funds were tapped to maintain benefits.
Judge McConnell’s initial order, issued on October 31, 2025, gave the administration a choice: make a full payment by Monday, November 3, or resolve administrative and clerical burdens to ensure partial payments could be delivered by Wednesday, November 5. The administration, however, did neither. Instead, it committed to only partially funding the program—first proposing 50% of typical benefits, then adjusting to 65%—while reserving additional funds for child nutrition programs. This move, the administration argued, was necessary to ensure funding for those programs through June 2026.
The judge was not persuaded. In his written decision, McConnell dismissed the administration’s justification as "implausible," pointing out that transferring approximately $4 billion to fully fund November SNAP benefits would still leave $19.35 billion for child nutrition programs through May and beyond. "Contrary to the defendant's argument, 29 million children are not at risk of going hungry," he wrote, directly challenging the administration’s narrative. He further accused the Trump administration of "erroneously and intentionally" conflating SNAP and child nutrition program funding for political purposes.
The political overtones of the dispute were impossible to ignore. Judge McConnell cited a social media post by President Trump on November 4, in which the president threatened to cut off all SNAP benefits unless Senate Democrats voted to reopen the government. This, the judge argued, demonstrated a clear intent to leverage hunger for political gain. "What defendants are really trying to do is to leverage people's hunger to gain partisan political advantage in the shutdown fight," Kristin Bateman, an attorney for the plaintiffs, asserted in court. Judge McConnell appeared to agree, stating that the administration’s actions had caused "irreparable harm"—harm that could not be undone.
The Department of Justice, for its part, insisted it had complied with the court’s order. "Your Honor, the government complied with the court's order," DOJ lawyer Tyler Becker said, arguing that any delays in payments should be blamed on the states, which administer the SNAP program and faced challenges recalculating benefits amid shifting federal guidance. Becker maintained, "This all comes from Congress not having appropriated funds for SNAP. This is a state problem." Yet, Judge McConnell was unmoved, emphasizing that the source of the delay was irrelevant to the suffering of hungry families. "It’s likely that SNAP recipients are hungry as we sit here," he remarked during the hearing, as reported by Rhode Island Current.
The practical consequences of the funding lapse have been severe, especially in states like Rhode Island, where 145,000 residents rely on SNAP. Governor Dan McKee described the situation as "truly unprecedented," noting that the loss of SNAP benefits has also disrupted local economies. Lt. Gov. Sabina Matos highlighted that over 900 retailers in Rhode Island, including nearly 200 locally-owned grocery stores, depend on SNAP, with the program accounting for as much as 60% of food sales in low-income areas. "That money has simply disappeared from our local economy," she lamented, urging retailers to share data with her office to gauge the full impact.
Charitable organizations have scrambled to fill the gap. The Rhode Island Community Food Bank, for example, has raised an additional $1.2 million and purchased nearly one million pounds of food to distribute to struggling families. The United Way of Rhode Island reported a 150% increase in calls to its food assistance helpline since October, while the Rhode Island Foundation began distributing $1 million in emergency grants to community agencies. Lindsey Haynes-Maslow, a health policy professor at the University of North Carolina, advised SNAP recipients to stock up on non-perishable foods, warning, "Thanksgiving is in a few weeks from now. This is a huge time when our charitable food system is already overwhelmed."
The legal battle is far from over. Just over an hour after Judge McConnell issued his order, the USDA filed a notice of appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The Department of Justice’s Wednesday court filing argued that the USDA could not "raid an entirely different program, to the tune of billions of dollars, in the mere hope that Congress will fix the ensuing deficit through the general appropriations process." Vice President JD Vance weighed in, calling the ruling "an absurd ruling, because you have a federal judge effectively telling us what we have to do in the midst of a Democrat government shutdown." He added, "In the midst of a shutdown, we can't have a federal court telling the president how he has to triage the situation," squarely placing blame on Democrats for the impasse.
Judge McConnell, however, stood firm. "The government had an obligation in following the order to make the full payment so that people everywhere throughout the country would get their SNAP benefits immediately," he stated. "We've now gone six days without needed food to the 42 million, 16 million children. Irreparable harm. That's what the court's temporary restraining order attempted to resolve."
As the nation watches the ongoing legal and political wrangling, the stakes remain painfully real for millions of Americans. The judge’s order may provide temporary relief, but the deeper questions about the government’s obligations to its most vulnerable citizens—and the political gamesmanship that can put them at risk—linger on.
