President Trump Responds to Judge’s Ruling on SNAP Benefits

[eleos1954]

“Our Government lawyers do not think we have the legal authority to pay SNAP with certain monies we have available, and now two Courts have issued conflicting opinions on what we can and cannot do. I do NOT want Americans to go hungry just because the Radical Democrats refuse to do the right thing and REOPEN THE GOVERNMENT,” President Trump said on Truth Social.

President Trump Responds to Judge's Ruling on SNAP Benefits | The Gateway Pundit | by Cristina Laila

President Trump on Friday evening responded to a judge’s ruling on SNAP benefits.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

People should not suffer because of a political stunt.

This needs to go to appeal to determine if judges have the authority to interfere with congress or not.

 

[Say it aint so]

This needs to go to appeal to determine if judges have the authority to interfere with congress or not.

This is not interference at all.
That money is there, already appropriated for cases like this.
In fact not to do so is in violation of the laws on the books.

 

[eleos1954]

This is not interference at all.
That money is there, already appropriated for cases like this.
In fact not to do so is in violation of the laws on the books.

View attachment 372517

Under the Food and Nutrition Act (7 U.S.C. § 2027), the contingency fund is for "unforeseen circumstances" that could disrupt SNAP operations, with funds usable "in such amounts and at such times as may become necessary to carry out program operations." The Trump administration interprets this narrowly: reserves are for supplementing insufficient appropriations (e.g., if budgeted funds fall short due to unexpected demand), not for no appropriations during a shutdown, which they classify as a congressional failure, not an "unforeseen" emergency.

The very purpose of a CR

The U.S. government operates on a fiscal year (Oct 1 – Sep 30). If Congress fails to pass the 12 annual appropriations bills on time, a CR provides stopgap funding at current or reduced levels until full budgets are approved. It's purpose is NOT to add funding (such as the democratic party is wanting to do)

This could be resolved now by passing the CR and the democratic party taking up their "added ideas" later ... I think it will go to appeal.

 

[essentialsaltes]

The Trump administration interprets this narrowly

And a judge disagrees, and they are the deciders. Yes, an appeal is likely. But it will be the judges' interpretation that matters.

 

[eleos1954]

This is not interference at all.
That money is there, already appropriated for cases like this.
In fact not to do so is in violation of the laws on the books.

View attachment 372517

The U.S. government operates on a fiscal year (Oct 1 – Sep 30). If Congress fails to pass the 12 annual appropriations bills on time, a CR provides stopgap funding at current or reduced levels until full budgets are approved. it's to continue "normal spending" that's it's very purpose ... until full budgets are approved ... Trumps stance is the funds are to be used in an emergency situation not because one party or the other refuses to not pass a CR (that's a created emergency) as this could be resolved right now by passing the CR

Guess we will see how it plays out

 

[eleos1954]

And a judge disagrees, and they are the deciders. Yes, an appeal is likely. But it will be the judges' interpretation that matters.

In the U.S. federal government, Congress decides how money is spent—not the President, not the courts, and not any single agency. This is rooted in the Constitution (Article I, Section 9): "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law." Will go to the supreme court I suspect.

 

[Say it aint so]

Under the Food and Nutrition Act (7 U.S.C. § 2027), the contingency fund is for "unforeseen circumstances" that could disrupt SNAP operations, with funds usable "in such amounts and at such times as may become necessary to carry out program operations." The Trump administration interprets this narrowly: reserves are for supplementing insufficient appropriations (e.g., if budgeted funds fall short due to unexpected demand), not for no appropriations during a shutdown, which they classify as a congressional failure, not an "unforeseen" emergency.

The very purpose of a CR

The U.S. government operates on a fiscal year (Oct 1 – Sep 30). If Congress fails to pass the 12 annual appropriations bills on time, a CR provides stopgap funding at current or reduced levels until full budgets are approved. It's purpose is NOT to add funding (such as the democratic party is wanting to do)

This could be resolved now by passing the CR and the democratic party taking up their "added ideas" later ... I think it will go to appeal.

That's AI of a Trump USDA memo to justify not using those funds where a previous USDA Trump memo said the opposite.
Moreover, the Trump admin covered those benefits the last shut down in 2018.
Under the Food and Nutrition Act (7 U.S.C. § 2027) there is no verbiage about natural disasters only.
So to me what you have is Trump et al putting a spin asserting verbiage in limitation use that is not there.

 

[eleos1954]

That's AI of a Trump USDA memo to justify not using those funds where a previous USDA Trump memo said the opposite.
Moreover, the Trump admin covered those benefits the last shut down in 2018.
Under the Food and Nutrition Act (7 U.S.C. § 2027) there is no verbiage about natural disasters only.
So to me what you have is Trump et al putting a spin asserting verbiage in limitation use that is not there.

It will likely go to the supreme court. natural disasters is not necessarily the only reasons .... there is an alternative route ... by passing the CR ... by not doing so democrats are creating a emergency .... that is not "natural" ... that's a planned "emergency" ... if the "shoe was on the other foot" .... would democrats be saying pass the CR? Most certainly.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) estimate the Democratic additions would add $1.5 trillion to the federal deficit over the next decade (2026–2035). Breakdown:

• ACA subsidy extension: $350 billion (increases coverage by 3.8 million but raises subsidies for 20+ million enrollees).
• Medicaid restoration: ~$840 billion (offsets OBBBA cuts; prevents coverage losses but expands eligibility).
• Other extensions and reversals: ~$310 billion (includes diabetes programs, emergency health authorities, and impoundment fixes).

This equates to roughly $48.39 billion per day for a one-month extension, per Republican analyses, though the full cost is long-term. The clean Republican CR adds no new spending beyond FY2025 levels.

1.5 Trillion in more debt is this what people want?

 

[Larniavc]

People should not suffer because of a political stunt.

Apart from hard working beneficiaries of SNAP of course.

 

[Fantine]

Does not matter as A they would not get the benefits today anyway. B the judges do not have the power to order that and C if there is no money to use legally they can not just pull it out of their butts. Even if they COULD legally use the money there is not enough to cover full benefits even if they used every red cent of it which means if something else comes up either in the form of a natural disaster which is what the funds are MEANT for or in the form of December coming around and the government still being shut down they will sure enough not have the money.

Hmm. Why did Trump approve FEMA aid for red states and leave residents of blue states hurting?
Don't you know he will turn on you, too, at the slightest provocation?

 

[eleos1954]

That's AI of a Trump USDA memo to justify not using those funds where a previous USDA Trump memo said the opposite.
Moreover, the Trump admin covered those benefits the last shut down in 2018.
Under the Food and Nutrition Act (7 U.S.C. § 2027) there is no verbiage about natural disasters only.
So to me what you have is Trump et al putting a spin asserting verbiage in limitation use that is not there.

Right SNAP benefits ..... not 1.5 Trillion in extra spending ... in 2018 we didn't have near the impact of illegal aliens given access to programs

As of November 1, 2025 (Day 32), the total economic cost is estimated at $140–160 billion in temporary GDP drag, driven by furloughs, delayed spending, and reduced private-sector output. However, most (~90%) is recoverable once funding resumes, leaving a permanent GDP loss of $7–14 billion depending on duration (per CBO scenarios: $7B if ends now, $11B after 6 weeks, $14B after 8 weeks).

Billions being lost due to not passing the CR.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

He's demolishing the White House and blasting Venezuelan fishermen out of their boats and he can't figure out how to give out Snap from a contingency fund.
Oh, I get it. He is unable to do good.

Trump is also redoing the a big bathroom, in marble. When this money can to programs for the poor kid. Be rich people matter. Not snap for the poor. I think he's claiming that's Democrats a Democratic program to him.

 

[JosephZ]

It will likely go to the supreme court. natural disasters is not necessarily the only reasons .... there is an alternative route ... by passing the CR ... by not doing so democrats are creating a emergency .... that is not "natural" ... that's a planned "emergency" ... if the "shoe was on the other foot" .... would democrats be saying pass the CR? Most certainly.

Today marks the first time in SNAP's 61 year history that monthly payments have failed to go out, even during previous government shutdowns. This was due to the Trump administration's deliberate withholding of available funds to keep the program going.

 

[essentialsaltes]

In the U.S. federal government, Congress decides how money is spent

They did already. It's in a passed law. The judiciary interprets that law when there are disagreements (as here between the states and the executive).

 

[Tropical Wilds]

None of this would have happened had not the Democrats pulled the shutdown stunt. Trump has made his position clear, as per CNN:

And President Donald Trump on Friday evening said that he’s instructed the administration’s lawyers to ask the courts how it can legally fund the benefits as quickly as possible.
“Even if we get immediate guidance, it will unfortunately be delayed while States get the money out,” Trump posted on Truth Social. “If we are given the appropriate legal direction by the Court, it will BE MY HONOR to provide the funding, just like I did with Military and Law Enforcement Pay.”

https://www.cnn.com/2025/10/31/politics/snap-benefits-november-judge-ruling

So the day the funding runs out, he decides to do something? And you call that a win…?

 

[Say it aint so]

It will likely go to the supreme court. natural disasters is not necessarily the only reasons .... there is an alternative route ... by passing the CR ... by not doing so democrats are creating a emergency .... that is not "natural" ... that's a planned "emergency" ... if the "shoe was on the other foot" .... would democrats be saying pass the CR? Most certainly.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) estimate the Democratic additions would add $1.5 trillion to the federal deficit over the next decade (2026–2035). Breakdown:

• ACA subsidy extension: $350 billion (increases coverage by 3.8 million but raises subsidies for 20+ million enrollees).
• Medicaid restoration: ~$840 billion (offsets OBBBA cuts; prevents coverage losses but expands eligibility).
• Other extensions and reversals: ~$310 billion (includes diabetes programs, emergency health authorities, and impoundment fixes).

This equates to roughly $48.39 billion per day for a one-month extension, per Republican analyses, though the full cost is long-term. The clean Republican CR adds no new spending beyond FY2025 levels.

1.5 Trillion in more debt is this what people want?

Here's the take away. The reserve funds are there. Trump et al just refuse (so far) to put it to use.

 

[Fantine]

Today marks the first time in SNAP's 61 year history that monthly payments have failed to go out, even during previous government shutdowns. This was due to the Trump administration's deliberate withholding of available funds to keep the program going.

And let's not forget that the Republicans crying crocodile years already cut SNAP by $186 million in their budget. Hypocrites.

 

[Valletta]

So the day the funding runs out, he decides to do something? And you call that a win…?

Unfortunately the Democrats again voted against the continuing resolution and there are conflicting court orders. President Trump is not responsible for the behavior of Democrat senators nor the courts. Many seem furious about Trump's successful economic policies and negotiations and know that keeping the government shut down will hurt the U.S. economy.

 

[Say it aint so]

Unfortunately the Democrats again voted against the continuing resolution and there are conflicting court orders. President Trump is not responsible for the behavior of Democrat senators nor the courts. Many seem furious about Trump's successful economic policies and negotiations and know that keeping the government shut down will hurt the U.S. economy.

I know a court ordered Trump to continue the benefits regardless of the government shutdown, what court ruled counter to that?

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Unfortunately the Democrats again voted against the continuing resolution and there are conflicting court orders. President Trump is not responsible for the behavior of Democrat senators nor the courts. Many seem furious about Trump's successful economic policies and negotiations and know that keeping the government shut down will hurt the U.S. economy.

Unfortunately the reputation of Republicans who say “just pass what we want and we will come back to the table” and then never do has preceded them, and their word is worth less than vapor. Democrats know they won’t come back to the table and the people will suffer, so they have to dig in.

Successful economic policies? The government is shut down, he’s done nothing to ease it but blather on social media, play golf, and fiddle around with a ball room. The American people are rallying together to try and help people who don’t have food, he’s MIA. Successful presidents with successful economic policies don’t have millions of people wondering where their next meal is coming from. Successful economic policies don’t have the government shut down in a month, flirting with breaking the longest shutdown in US history record… One Trump already had, I may add; as it occured over his administration in 2018… The man couldn’t care less about the American people, and yet there are people so hopelessly devoted to him they will congratulate him running a ship aground, saying to ignore that it’s sinking and celebrate the abundance of water previously denied them by the evil Democrats.

I mean, the man just held a Great Gatsby-themed party with the tagline “a little party never killed nobody.” Other than he clearly didn’t get what the book was about, nor did he get what the movie or song he’s quoting from that movie means (which is no surprise TBH, but still), short of him saying “Valletta, I do not care about you or anything you care about,” I’m not sure he could be any more blatant.