Courts Ordered Aid – But the Trump Administration Keeps Letting People Go Hungry

Washington – In the midst of the longest government shutdown in decades, the Trump administration is once again under fire – this time over hunger. A coalition of cities, relief organizations, and social associations accuses the White House of violating a court order by providing only half of the government food assistance owed to millions in need. The plaintiffs’ attorneys describe it as “a blatant breach of the state’s duty to provide basic care.” On Tuesday, they filed a complaint with the federal court in Rhode Island – just days after Judge Maria McElroy had ordered the government to ensure that all SNAP benefits (“Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program”) be fully paid out in November.

Lavern Spicer, Curley’s House Food Bank: “Because of the lack of open food banks, people are panicking. We’ve been helping the needy for over 25 years. Our elderly citizens urgently need our support.”

But the Department of Agriculture (USDA), operating under Trump’s directive, has instead decided to provide only half of the usual support – financed from an emergency fund of 4.65 billion dollars. This amount, the plaintiffs argue, is “not only insufficient but unlawful.” For more than 42 million Americans who rely on food stamps each month, it means empty refrigerators and a government that is walking away from its responsibility. “The court has clearly ruled that no one should go hungry because Washington is gridlocked,” the lawsuit states. “Yet the government is acting as if hunger were a budgetary option.” The coalition’s lawyers argue that the partial payment not only violates the court’s order but also the moral obligation of the state to care for its most vulnerable citizens.

The Department of Agriculture defends itself by claiming it could take weeks, perhaps months, for states to adjust the technical systems needed to distribute full payments. But the judge is not convinced. On Tuesday, she set a clear deadline: by Wednesday, the government must explain why it is defying the ruling – and how it intends to curb hunger in the country. She threatened severe consequences – reaching all the way into the White House.

Meanwhile, food banks and community centers are reporting increasing numbers of families finding nothing left on their EBT cards. In New York City alone, more than 1.4 million people are affected. In Texas, Florida, and Ohio, food banks are reaching their limits. The administration speaks of “technical delays,” but the plaintiffs call it what it is: a cold choice of priorities in a nation that should not be failing because of poverty – if only it chose not to. Behind this legal confrontation lies a deeper truth: hunger is not a natural disaster but a political decision. While the president continues to juggle billions for security walls and tax cuts, money for bread, milk, and fruit is missing. “This is not a dispute over numbers,” one of the attorneys told the court. “It is a dispute over dignity.”

By the end of this week, it will become clear whether the judiciary can force the government to fulfill its obligation – or whether a country that calls itself a superpower will allow its poorest citizens to starve in a state of paralysis.