Trump Freezes the Bread - America’s Moral Low Point

Washington - While millions of Americans do not know how they will pay for their food this month, Donald Trump’s administration is once again turning to the Supreme Court of the United States. The goal is to keep full payments in the federal SNAP program - the nation’s main food aid program - frozen as long as the longest government shutdown in U.S. history continues. It is a move that may appear legally intricate but in truth marks a moral rupture: the deliberate instrumentalization of hunger as a political weapon.

Trump’s actions are not a legal strategy but a late, almost shabby act of revenge - driven by defiance, not by logic. For in the budget compromise reached in principle on November 9, it has already been established that funds for SNAP will be released immediately once the shutdown ends. In other words: even if the Supreme Court decides in the coming days, the question is in fact moot. The funds will flow anyway once Congress reopens the government.

For weeks, the courts have been arguing over whether the program must continue to pay out in full. SNAP - officially the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program - provides for about 42 to 44 million people in the United States, many of whom have already received no benefits since the beginning of November. Three federal judges - in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and the District of Columbia - ordered the government to continue disbursing food aid. The court in Rhode Island made it clear that the government “must release the funds on time or as soon as possible for the November payments,” that the Department of Agriculture (USDA) is obligated to continue full payments. In Rhode Island, Federal Judge John J. McConnell on Thursday ordered full funding by Friday - whereupon several states loaded their EBT cards within hours.

Then followed the judicial pendulum that decided over refrigerators and pantries. On Friday evening, November 7, Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issued an administrative stay order temporarily suspending McConnell’s decision to give the appeals court time for review. Some states that had already paid out left the amounts standing - others stopped. On Sunday evening, November 9, the Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit in Boston responded and left the order for full payments in place through federal judges Julie Rikelman, Gustavo A. Gelpí, and David J. Barron. At the same time, the 48-hour breathing pause set by the Supreme Court remained in effect: the federal government did not have to pay out during this window. On Monday, November 10, the administration followed up and once again appealed to the Supreme Court to keep the full payments frozen until the main proceedings are resolved.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer, Trump’s top representative before the court, confirmed on Monday that the administration was challenging the decisions of the lower courts. In a letter to the justices, he pointed to a possible end of the shutdown through a congressional compromise that would replenish SNAP funds. The main point, however, remains: the order to pay full benefits violates the budgetary powers of the executive and legislative branches. In practice, this means that the government claims the right to deny food to millions of families as long as politics remains deadlocked.

The legal situation is confusing, the human one clear. In numerous states administering the program, chaos reigns. Some governors instructed their agencies to continue loading the cards of those in need in full. Others did not dare, fearing they would be left with billions in costs. The USDA, meanwhile, sent out instructions over the weekend to “undo” benefits already paid out - a bureaucratic monstrosity that overwhelms even robust social administrations. In Boston, Federal Judge Indira Talwani on Monday paused exactly this attempt and scheduled a hearing for the same day.

The Supreme Court has so far allowed the government to block full payments temporarily. A further decision is expected for Tuesday evening, November 11 - we will report from there. Even if the Supreme Court extends the freeze, Congress could still pass a budget bill this week that would fund SNAP again - including reimbursements to states that advanced money from their own coffers.

Warnings from the states sound drastic. Administrative officials speak of looming “catastrophic operational disruptions” if Washington does not provide reimbursement. In Wisconsin, one of the first states to pay in full after McConnell’s order, the balance in the state’s SNAP account is nearly exhausted. Without federal subsidies, according to a sworn statement, the state could within days no longer reimburse stores that sell food to those in need.

The social consequences are intensifying. Millions of families have not yet received their benefits because their states are waiting for signals from Washington. Millions of others were able to buy groceries thanks to the brief window after McConnell’s decision - before the emergency order from Washington shut off the flow again. For many - especially children, seniors, and single parents - these delays are existential. We, too, are trying to help - as best we can. Over the weekend, some of us were in Dallas, with boxes full of food and pet supplies, which we handed out to those who at this moment hardly know where to turn. What we had, we gave away, helping for hours with distribution. Because the misery is great. And because looking away is no longer an option.

“Every hour that passes deepens the suffering,” says Diane Yentel, president of the National Council of Nonprofits, one of the plaintiff organizations. “If basic humanity does not compel the government to ensure the nourishment of millions, then at least the repeated rulings by the courts declaring its actions unlawful should.” But the White House remains silent. No press conference, no statement, no trace of compassion. At the same time, Washington demands that states “undo” amounts already paid, until the final budget resolution - an undertaking that Judge Talwani has so far halted and that in practice would hardly be feasible without shaking the infrastructure of grocery stores, EBT providers, and social agencies.

In Connecticut, Governor Ned Lamont reacted with outrage and defiance. “No, Connecticut will not reclaim SNAP benefits already sent to the 360,000 people who depend on this money to eat,” he declared. “These people must not become pawns in political power struggles. We stand with them.” Other Democrat-led states announced similar resistance - and at the same time demanded legal certainty so that retailers are not crushed between the checkout counter and the courtroom. The fact that a federal government is fighting its own courts to deny food access to the needy has few precedents in United States history. The battle over SNAP has long since become more than a legal dispute - it is a moral confession.

When the Supreme Court decides in the coming hours whether benefits remain frozen, it will no longer be about budget law. It will be about whether a government that portrays itself as a savior is willing to let its own citizens go hungry to demonstrate strength. And it will be about whether America’s institutions are still strong enough to stand against such cynicism.