Judiciary Intervenes Hours Before Deadline

WASHINGTON D.C. – Two United States federal judges issued emergency rulings late on Friday, 31 October 2025, compelling the Trump administration to continue funding the nation's primary food assistance program, just hours before benefits were set to be suspended for nearly 42 million people. The back-to-back decisions in separate lawsuits provide a temporary reprieve for one in eight Americans who rely on the aid, amid a protracted government shutdown that began on 1 October 2025.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) had announced it would suspend payments for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) starting Saturday, 1 November 2025, citing a lack of congressionally approved funds. However, the court orders mandate that the administration must now use contingency funds to ensure payments continue.

Details of the Rulings

In the first case, brought by a coalition of U.S. cities, non-profit organisations, and a trade union, U.S. District Judge John McConnell in Providence, Rhode Island, issued a temporary restraining order blocking the suspension. Judge McConnell argued that the administration's refusal to tap a contingency fund of over $5 billion was unlawful and that the potential for "irreparable harm" to families necessitated the order.

Almost simultaneously, in a case filed by the attorneys general of 22 states and the District of Columbia, a federal judge in Massachusetts also ruled the planned suspension was unlawful. The plaintiffs in both cases contended that the USDA had the legal authority and the available funds to continue the program, a position the courts have now provisionally upheld. The administration has been ordered to report to the courts by Monday on its compliance plan.

Global Significance of US Domestic Policy

While a domestic U.S. issue, the near-suspension of a critical social safety net carries significant global implications that resonate with Kenyan and East African observers. The political paralysis, known as a government shutdown, stems from the U.S. Congress's failure to pass necessary spending legislation. This gridlock demonstrates how deeply political disputes can impact essential services, a challenge familiar to many governments worldwide.

The SNAP program is the largest anti-hunger initiative in the U.S., costing the public purse between $8.5 billion and $9 billion each month to support its beneficiaries. A sudden halt to such a significant expenditure would not only trigger a domestic food security crisis but could also create deflationary pressures within the U.S. economy by reducing consumer spending. According to the Congressional Budget Office, a prolonged shutdown could permanently erase billions from U.S. GDP, with estimates suggesting a loss of $10 billion to $15 billion per week in economic activity. As the world's largest economy, a slowdown in the U.S. can reduce global trade, investor confidence, and demand for exports from regions including East Africa.

The Unresolved Standoff

The Trump administration had argued that it lacked the legal authority to disburse SNAP funds without a new spending bill from Congress and that the existing contingency funds were reserved for natural disasters. The court rulings reject this interpretation, framing it as a check on executive power.

Despite the judicial intervention, the long-term stability of the program remains in jeopardy. The court orders are a temporary measure, and officials have warned that even with the release of funds, logistical challenges could delay payments for one to two weeks. The core issue—the government shutdown—remains unresolved. Until the U.S. Congress and the White House reach a political agreement to fund the government, the social safety net for tens of millions of Americans will continue to operate under a cloud of uncertainty, serving as a stark reminder of the far-reaching consequences of political instability.