In a deeply troubling legal maneuver, the Trump administration appealed a federal judge’s order requiring full funding of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) during the government shutdown, arguing that the federal government would suffer “greater harm” than low-income Americans who may go hungry. The appeal, filed in response to U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan’s ruling, claimed that complying with the court’s mandate would cause “significant and irreparable harm to the government,” outweighing the injury to millions of Americans who rely on food assistance to survive.

Judge Chutkan had ordered the administration to use available funds to ensure uninterrupted SNAP benefits for November, citing the urgent needs of over 42 million recipients, including 16 million children. She condemned the administration’s refusal to act as “arbitrary and capricious,” emphasizing that the harm to hungry families was immediate and concrete, while the government’s claimed fiscal damage was speculative. The administration’s appeal challenged the court’s authority, arguing that the judiciary cannot compel the executive branch to spend funds—framing the issue as a separation-of-powers conflict.

Critics argue that the administration’s position reveals a disturbing prioritization of bureaucratic control over basic human needs. “This is not just a legal dispute—it’s a moral one,” said advocacy groups. “To argue that paperwork and budgetary caution matter more than whether children eat is a betrayal of public trust.” The appeal has sparked outrage among food justice advocates, who warn that the government’s stance could set a dangerous precedent—where essential services become bargaining chips during future shutdowns.

The Trump administration didn’t just create the shutdown crisis—it actively refused to resolve it, even when the solution was within reach. With funds available and a federal judge ordering them to act, they chose instead to appeal, arguing that bureaucratic inconvenience outweighed the need for families to eat. This wasn’t a case of “can’t”—it was a deliberate “won’t.” The cruelty wasn’t collateral damage; it was the strategy.

In essence, the Trump administration argued that preserving its own fiscal discretion was more important than feeding hungry Americans. This stance exposes the deeper cruelty behind the shutdown it engineered. Rather than using available funds to maintain SNAP benefits, Trump’s team appealed the judge’s order, claiming the government faced “greater harm” than the millions of families who might go without food. This isn’t bureaucratic indifference—it’s a calculated choice to prioritize political leverage over human survival. The GOP created the shutdown crisis, and now it’s using hunger as a weapon.

Speaker Mike Johnson has adopted a similarly hardline stance during the current shutdown, refusing to advance standalone bills to fund SNAP—even as 42 million Americans face food insecurity. On a private GOP call, Johnson acknowledged that “the pain register is about to hit level 10,” but insisted Republicans must hold the line to pressure Democrats. This echoes the Trump administration’s earlier legal argument that the government would suffer “greater harm” by being forced to fund SNAP than the harm experienced by hungry families. Johnson has now embraced the same logic, claiming that SNAP contingency funds are “not legally available”—despite USDA memos and historical precedent showing they were used during previous shutdowns.

Johnson has cited a legal analysis from the Trump administration to justify withholding billions in emergency SNAP funds, arguing that using them would divert money from other programs, such as school meals and infant formula. This mirrors Trump’s strategy of reframing humanitarian aid as a zero-sum legal dilemma—while ignoring the immediate suffering caused by inaction. In public statements, Johnson has also attempted to rewrite history, falsely claiming that Trump “bent over backwards” to mitigate harm during the 2019 shutdown—even though the administration was sued for refusing to fund SNAP.

Johnson is also pushing a new Continuing Resolution (CR) bill to extend government funding beyond the current expiration date of November 21, 2025. The bill would continue funding at current levels into early 2026, likely in January, and contains no new policy riders. It does not include an extension of Affordable Care Act subsidies, which are set to expire at the end of the year—a central sticking point for Democrats. Johnson has refused to negotiate on this issue, calling it a “separate policy fight,” while Democrats insist that healthcare protections must be part of any deal to reopen the government.

Democrats have made their demands clear: they want a one-year extension of ACA premium subsidies, a clean CR to reopen the government at current funding levels, and the creation of a bipartisan committee to negotiate long-term healthcare cost reforms. They argue that without these guarantees, millions of Americans will face rising premiums or lose coverage entirely. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called it a “reasonable offer,” but Republicans have rejected it as a nonstarter, insisting that policy negotiations must wait until after the government reopens.

The legal battle escalated when the Trump administration requested that the Supreme Court intervene. After a lower court ordered full SNAP payments using emergency USDA funds, the administration claimed that complying would “sow further shutdown chaos” and harm other programs, such as school lunches and infant formula. The First Circuit declined to block the order, so Trump’s team appealed to the Supreme Court. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issued an administrative stay—temporarily halting the order to give the appeals court time to review. This procedural move allowed Trump to pause roughly $4 billion in SNAP payments, leaving millions of families in limbo. For the first time in the program’s 60-year history, benefits lapsed at the start of the month. States scrambled to respond, with some issuing full payments based on USDA guidance, while others waited in confusion.

Critics viewed the Supreme Court’s intervention as a dangerous precedent: a moment when the highest court allowed hunger to be used as a political tool—not because aid was unavailable, but because the administration sought more time to argue against providing it.

Many legal analysts argue that this approach reflects authoritarian tendencies, especially in how the administration weaponized executive power and resisted judicial oversight. The refusal to comply with a court order, the use of suffering as leverage, and the insistence that the executive branch cannot be compelled to act—even when lives are at stake—mirror patterns seen in authoritarian regimes. Speaker Johnson’s refusal to allow votes on targeted aid bills, his defiance of precedent, and his use of hunger as a political tool all reinforce this pattern. This isn’t just fiscal brinkmanship—it’s a direct challenge to democratic checks and balances. When a government elevates its own control above the needs of its people, it signals a dangerous shift toward centralized, unaccountable power.

In essence, critics warn that Trump and the GOP are not merely mismanaging SNAP—they are actively using it to dismantle democratic governance and replace it with authoritarian control. By defying court orders, blocking emergency food aid, and refusing to negotiate with Democrats, they are turning hunger into a mechanism of obedience. SNAP is no longer just a nutrition program—it’s being weaponized as a loyalty test, a pressure point, and a tool to override democratic norms and enforce unilateral rule.

This alignment between Trump, Johnson, and the broader GOP isn’t a glitch—it’s a blueprint. Critics warn that if this pattern continues unchecked, the United States risks sliding from constitutional democracy toward centralized, authoritarian rule.

But resistance is rising. Across the country, advocates, organizers, and everyday citizens are refusing to let hunger be used as a weapon. They are demanding transparency, accountability, and compassion. They are calling out cruelty disguised as policy and exposing the machinery of control behind the shutdown. Every petition signed, every call made, every story shared is part of a growing movement to reclaim government as a tool for public good—not private power.

This is not just a fight over funding. It’s a fight for the soul of democracy. And it begins with rejecting hunger as leverage, silence as strategy, and suffering as collateral. The people most affected by these policies are not passive victims—they are powerful voices. And when they speak, organize, and vote, they reshape the future.

This moment demands courage. It demands clarity. And it requires unity. Because when authoritarianism feeds on silence, resistance becomes nourishment. Let this be the generation that refused to be intimidated, that chose compassion over cruelty, and that rebuilt democracy from the ground up—one voice, one vote, one act of defiance at a time.

---

📚 References

1. Trump administration asks Supreme Court for OK to hold back full SNAP benefits — POLITICO
2. Bessent won’t say whether Trump will use emergency funds to restore SNAP benefits — CNN
3. USDA says it’s working to comply with judge’s order to pay full SNAP benefits — POLITICO
4. Speaker Mike Johnson’s shutdown strategy and SNAP stance — NBC News
5. Democrats demand ACA subsidy extension in shutdown negotiations — The Washington Post
6. [Supreme Court administrative stay issued by Justice Jackson](https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/11/sup