>> Continued From the Previous Page <<
Over 40 million Americans rely on SNAP each month, and the administration’s $5 billion emergency fund wasn’t enough to sustain the program through November. With the shutdown deepening, unions and left-leaning nonprofit groups rushed to federal court to sue the U.S. Department of Agriculture, demanding immediate funding before the cutoff date.
Courtroom Chaos and Conflicting Orders
The legal confusion began last week when Judge McConnell ordered President Trump to tap emergency reserves to keep SNAP running. But in a twist, another Obama-appointed judge issued a separate ruling stating that the USDA itself had the authority to continue funding the program.
Caught between conflicting directives, the Trump administration requested clarification, pledging to partially cover SNAP benefits while awaiting judicial guidance. That wasn’t enough for Judge McConnell, who doubled down this week — commanding the administration to fully fund the program by Friday.
Redirecting Child Nutrition Funds
In a move raising eyebrows across Washington, McConnell went further, ordering the Trump administration to pull money from federal child nutrition programs to make up the shortfall — funds that were never meant for SNAP.
At the hearing, the DOJ’s Tyler Becker defended the administration’s actions, saying that partial funds had already been released and the delay rested with the states. “This is a state problem,” Becker told the court, arguing that the administration had met its obligations.
But McConnell rejected that claim outright, accusing the administration of “doing nothing to ensure” that SNAP benefits would actually reach recipients. He demanded the White House use not only contingency funds but also the Section 32 child nutrition accounts to guarantee full payments.
Trump Appeals Amid Growing Frustration
The Trump administration quickly appealed the ruling, arguing that federal judges were overstepping by dictating how funds should be spent during a shutdown created by congressional inaction.
Supporters of the administration say McConnell’s order effectively forces the executive branch to break budgetary law — an unprecedented step that could set off a larger constitutional clash between the judiciary and the presidency.
Critics, however, are praising McConnell’s decision as a victory for struggling families, claiming the administration was using SNAP benefits as political leverage.
Meanwhile, conservatives point out the irony: an Obama-appointed judge lecturing Trump officials about fiscal responsibility while forcing them to raid child nutrition funds to pay for what they call “a welfare program run amok.”
With tensions already boiling over the shutdown, this ruling adds yet another explosive chapter to the political battle consuming Washington — and one that could have major implications for how far judges can go in steering federal spending.
As the clock ticks toward Friday’s deadline, all eyes are on the Trump administration’s appeal — and whether the courts will back down from what many are calling a judicial overreach disguised as compassion.
