GLOBAL – In a significant assertion of judicial authority over executive action, a United States federal judge ordered the Trump administration to fully fund the nation's primary food assistance program, ensuring that approximately 42 million low-income Americans would not lose their benefits due to a government shutdown. The ruling, delivered on Thursday, November 6, 2025, by U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell Jr. in Rhode Island, mandated that the administration make the funds available by Friday, November 7, 2025, EAT.

The court's intervention came in response to the administration's plan to only partially cover the November benefits for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), a decision Judge McConnell stated was made without adequate consideration for the severe consequences. "The evidence shows that people will go hungry, food pantries will be overburdened, and needless suffering will occur," McConnell stated in his ruling, emphasizing the irreparable harm faced by millions.

The case highlights the vulnerability of essential social services during periods of political stalemate, a scenario with parallels and important lessons for nations globally, including Kenya.

The American Safety Net Under Strain

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, commonly known as SNAP, is the largest anti-hunger initiative in the United States. It provides benefits to low-income individuals and families via an Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) card, which functions like a debit card for purchasing groceries. The program serves roughly one in eight Americans, a population size comparable to nearly the entire population of Kenya. According to a 2019 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) report, 86% of all SNAP benefits support households with a child, an elderly person, or an individual with a disability.

The funding crisis emerged from a partial U.S. government shutdown, which began on December 22, 2018, and became the longest in the country's history. When federal appropriations lapse, funding for programs like SNAP is not guaranteed. The Trump administration had initially indicated that it would not be able to pay November benefits, later offering to cover only a portion of them after an earlier court challenge. Judge McConnell criticized this plan, noting that the administration knew it would cause long delays and failed to consider the resulting harm.

Global Implications and Kenyan Context

While the events transpired in the United States, the underlying principles of judicial oversight and the protection of social welfare programs resonate strongly in Kenya and the East Africa region. Kenya operates its own social assistance programs under the National Safety Net Programme (NSNP), which provides cash transfers to orphans and vulnerable children, older persons, and persons with severe disabilities. Established in 2013, the NSNP aims to increase the efficiency of support to the country's poor and vulnerable populations.

The U.S. court's decision serves as a powerful case study on the role of an independent judiciary in compelling government action to protect citizens' fundamental needs, even amidst intense political disputes. It underscores the importance of ring-fencing funds for social protection to shield them from political volatility.

Globally, food insecurity remains a critical challenge. The World Food Programme (WFP) estimated in its 2025 Global Outlook that 319 million people face acute food insecurity. The 2025 Global Report on Food Crises noted that conflict, economic shocks, and climate extremes are key drivers of this crisis. The disruption of a major food assistance program in one of the world's wealthiest nations illustrates that even robust economies are not immune to political decisions that can exacerbate food insecurity for millions.

The ruling by Judge McConnell forced the administration to utilize a contingency fund to ensure benefits were paid. The legal battle involved lawsuits from numerous states arguing that the administration had a legal duty to use available funds to keep SNAP operational. This successful legal challenge provides a precedent for civil society and state actors on holding governments accountable for the welfare of their most vulnerable populations, a lesson of significant relevance for ongoing policy and governance discussions in Kenya.