Food Aid Payments Now Partially Restored – Trump’s Reluctant Concession and Epstein Would Have Been So Proud of Donald

Washington – For the first time since the beginning of the government shutdown, Donald Trump has been forced to back down. After weeks of defiance and growing anger, his administration announced on Monday evening that the nation’s most important food assistance program – SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) – would be partially funded again. The move came under pressure, forced by three federal courts that ruled the government could not suspend the program. Yet the ruling is no victory for those affected – on the contrary: the president, furious over the judicial decisions, will likely stop at nothing to find new ways to harm the poorest Americans.

The Department of Agriculture (USDA) had announced that as of November 1 no payments would be made, claiming there were no funds left. Now it says the aid will continue “partially” – with no clarity about how much or when. In many states, it can take up to two weeks before the benefit cards are reloaded. Over 42 million people, about one in eight Americans, depend on SNAP. For them, it is not about political maneuvering – it is about survival.

Three federal courts – one in Rhode Island, one in Massachusetts – ruled the Trump administration’s refusal to release roughly five billion dollars in contingency reserves for SNAP to be unlawful. Judge John J. McConnell ruled that the White House must release the funds “timely, or as soon as possible” to prevent an imminent catastrophe. His colleague Indira Talwani called the decision to stop food assistance simply “unlawful.” She said she could not understand “how this is not an emergency when millions of people are losing their food.” In addition, Judge Beryl Howell (U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia) joined in and likewise ordered the Department of Agriculture to take immediate action to resume payments. Trump, however, was far from relaxed about the ruling.

How much will actually be paid out remains unclear. The administration has provided no numbers, no timeline, no guarantees. It continues to play for time – at the expense of those who have none left. Meanwhile, states, charities, and churches are trying to fill the gap with private funds. In Missouri and Arkansas, volunteers are packing food parcels. In California, food banks are calling for donations. In New Mexico and Maine, governors are seeking help from their emergency funds. Trump himself has repeatedly said in recent days that he wants to reduce the “costs of social dependency.” It is a phrase that sounds cold but is deliberate. Because in this America, hunger has long since been redefined as a teaching method – a tool of pressure, of punishment, of disciplining the poor.

Epstein would have been proud of Trump – of his decadent and shamelessly tasteless Halloween party at Mar-a-Lago, while outside many people no longer know what to do or where to turn.

All the more important in these days is loyalty to those affected. That includes us. The people standing in line at food distribution centers bear no blame for the political obstinacy in the White House. They are the victims of a president who measures his power by the suffering of others. And they are the test for all who speak of responsibility but rarely act upon it. When judges have the courage to stand up to his megalomania, to resist it, then it also takes social solidarity to bring the rulings to life. Because Donald Trump will leave nothing untried to circumvent the legal stop sign – with budgetary tricks, administrative obstruction, or sheer defiance. The judiciary can limit the damage but cannot prevent it from reappearing.

What remains is a country where courts have to order the prevention of hunger – and a president who would rather boast than help. For the people who have the least, it is a bitter sign. For us, it is a mandate: not to look away, to help, to inform – and to break the silence that Trump needs in order to keep destroying.