13

Hours after a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to fund the food stamp program, Trump “Appeals to Supreme Court After Losing Bid to Curtail Food Stamp Aid”.

Has Trump stated a reason why he doesn’t want to fund SNAP? Did he explain why he would go through the trouble of denying food stamps to millions of Americans?

At least from my perspective, Trump's main goal is to benefit from all the decisions that he makes. But I don't see how he can benefit from personally begging SCOTUS to cut funding to a program that feeds the poor.

Improve this question
8
  • 9
    We generally don't try to answer questions in this community that ask for the internal motivation of people, because answers would tend to be entirely speculative. I rewrote the question to ask specifically for statements, so it won't get closed. Commented Nov 8 at 9:19
  • 4
    Because he's not a king (remember the "No Kings" protests?) and is following the law, which doesn't allow him to unilaterally repurpose funds from one place to another. Commented 2 days ago
  • 1
    @Meir Didn't this one court actually allowed him to do that? And was he fine with repurposing funds when it was about paying some military? Commented 2 days ago
  • 2
    @NoDataDumpNoContribution "Allowed" based on dodgy-to-nonexistent legal arguments. The military (which, let it be noted, is a core constitutional function of government) - that was a private donor who stepped in. How's about someone of those caterwauling about SNAP be generous with their own money rather than OPM? Commented 2 days ago
  • 3
    @Meir "and is following the law" Hah, funny. Oh, you are being serious? Like, for example, he is following the law when he says that some people will be laid off after the shutdown. Or when firing heads of agencies? Commented 2 days ago

4 Answers 4

Reset to default
24

To put it simply, it is so that they can blame Democrats when the benefits get cut off and people are not able to afford food. They have already updated government websites, blaming Democrats for this result.

USDA blames Democrats for potential SNAP benefits lapse in new message: 'The well has run dry'

The Agriculture Department on Saturday posted a new message to its website blaming Democrats for the upcoming suspension of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits, or food stamps, saying assistance will halt beginning Nov. 1 due to the government shutdown.

They even fought having to fund it after being ordered to by the courts.

Trump Administration Defies Court Orders to Fund SNAP, Denies 42 Million People Access to Food

The Food Research & Action Center (FRAC) is outraged. Within hours of a federal judge ordering the Trump administration to fully fund November SNAP benefits, the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed an appeal seeking to overturn not only today’s ruling, but prior court orders from Oct. 31 and Nov. 1 requiring funding of SNAP benefits. This action is abhorrent and unconscionable.

Instead of using the funding that has been readily available to feed people, this administration continues to fight to deny tens of millions from accessing the nutrition they need. For some unfathomable reason, the Trump administration wants to punish the 42 million people, including children, working parents, older adults, people with disabilities, and veterans, who rely on SNAP to put food on the table.

At a time when food insecurity is rising due to increasing grocery prices, the administration’s legal maneuver sends a clear and devastating message: that the well-being of America’s most vulnerable is not important. This appeal also creates yet another layer of confusion and chaos for states and families and will continue to drive negative ripple effects throughout local economies.

Improve this answer
21
  • 12
    Does seem like it's part of the all-Dems-fault approach on things shutdown related. In this specific instance however it is risky: appealing the court to reverse is a highly visible smoking gun that has Trump all over it. Sure a lot of poor people are urban Dems. But many Southern/rural states that vote Rep are also quite poor. And Trump made inroads with Dem working class voters, "branding" away from "party of the rich". Seems a needlessly hubristic, risky, move. But underestimating Trump's appeal has put eggs on many folks' faces so not betting yet he won't get away with it. Commented Nov 8 at 16:53
  • 5
    How can Trump blame someone else for not funding SNAP (which is separate from the shutdown) if he begged a supreme court justice to reverse it. Commented Nov 8 at 17:19
  • 5
    "They have already updated government websites, blaming Democrats for this result". Indeed. Here's an official white house website: whitehouse.gov/mysafespace which would be funny if it wasn't so sad. Commented Nov 8 at 19:16
  • 22
    @fdkgfosfskjdlsjdlkfsf Simply by stating that others are to blame, as in the message on many federal websites. Just because it isn't logical doesn't mean that he isn't doing it. Commented Nov 8 at 20:56
  • 3
    @ItalianPhilosopher those southern/rural Republicans have been voting against their (economic) interests for decades though so I can see why he's willing to take the risk Commented yesterday
8

It's all part of the ongoing US government shutdown. Both, Democrats and Republicans, are stuck and there is no immediate solution in sight. What may convince them eventually to compromise is a swaying public opinion. The public opinion is important because it counts towards expected midterm election results in one year. For example, a Democratic House would effectively limit what Trump can do much more than now.

That doesn't only result in rhetoric blaming the others. It also results in actions with real world implications.

It seems that the rules of the shutdown aren't completely fixed. Do we pay the military or not? Should air controllers work less or not? Can we fire employees or not? Must we pay SNAP recipients or not? All these questions must ultimately be answered by courts, if there is dispute, ultimately by the Supreme Court.

Trump obviously asked the Supreme Court because he doesn't want to pay for SNAP in this situation and that is because he hopes that not doing so would sway public opinion towards Republicans.

SNAP recipients are a bit more often Democratic than Republican but not paying for it will probably hurt both groups of voters.

The general strategy is always to stick it to the other side. Trump argues that the shutdown is the fault of the other side, that the Supreme Court decided that SNAP cannot be paid and that the resulting damage is the fault of the Democrats. His hopes are that this convinces the public. We will find out within the year.

In this way SNAP recipients are "just" collateral damage of an ongoing political power struggle in the US.

Whoever created the shutdown condition (the Constitution and Congress in 1884) probably didn't see this coming, that the poorest suffer most from it, or didn't care much about it.

Improve this answer
7
  • 1
    From my understanding, SNAP and the shutdown are two different things. SNAP was fully functional for a few hours, up until Trump begged scotus to stop is. Commented Nov 8 at 17:22
  • 2
    @fdkgfosfskjdlsjdlkfsf From my understanding SNAP isn't paid out because of the shutdown although it could be paid out. Yes, it's two things, but the problems of one are kind of related to the other. Commented Nov 8 at 17:55
  • 3
    @fdkgfosfskjdlsjdlkfsf Yes, it's because of the shutdown. SNAP gets its money from federal appropriations, and the shutdown happened because the appropriations ran out. There's an emergency fund, but it only contains enough for about half a month of benefits. Commented Nov 8 at 18:41
  • 7
    Shutdowns weren't really "invented", they're just the consequence of the Antideficiency Act of 1884, which says that money can only spent if Congress appropriates it. If Congress only appropriates enough money to fund spending until the end of September, the government shuts down after that. There have been proposals to modify this to automatically appropriate funds at previous levels, but they have never succeeded (legislators like having negotiating tactics). Commented Nov 8 at 18:49
  • 2
    @Barmar Invented is casual language, you're right. Let's say created. But they could have regulated it differently, for example specifying what is to be continued and what not. Commented Nov 8 at 21:33
5

As a brief procedural history, there is a $9 billion shortfall due to the shutdown. The administration was ordered to pay $5 billion from its contingency SNAP fund. The administration had originally argued that fund could not be used during a lapse in appropriations. However, it ultimately acquiesced to the order and emptied that fund for partial SNAP payment. The order at issue is over using $4 billion allocated for other nutritional assistance programs to cover the remaining shortfall. Here's the administration's argument

Instead, a single district judge has imposed a different solution: after 5 p.m. last night, he ordered the Department of Agriculture (USDA) to cover the SNAP shortfall by transferring billions of dollars that were appropriated for different, critical food-security programs—such as the National School Lunch Program—within a single business day (i.e., by tonight). That unprecedented injunction makes a mockery of the separation of powers. The core power of Congress is that of the purse, while the Executive is tasked with allocating limited resources across competing priorities. But here, the court below took the current shutdown as effective license to declare a federal bankruptcy and appoint itself the trustee, charged with picking winners and losers among those seeking some part of the limited pool of remaining federal funds.

The district court’s ruling is untenable at every turn. The court demanded that USDA find some, any, way to fund SNAP, treating the program essentially as a mandatory entitlement. But the SNAP statute is explicit that SNAP benefits are subject to available appropriations, and it states plainly that SNAP payments shall not exceed the funds appropriated for the program. Indeed, the statute and governing regulations specifically contemplate that, in the event of a shortfall in funding, USDA will direct States to reduce their benefits—which is exactly what USDA did this week.

The President is Constitutionally charged to faithfully execute the laws, so from that perspective if he's been convinced by his lawyers that using the other funds to fund SNAP is illegal he's arguably compelled to fight against doing it until he's exhausted legal remedies. Trump has said himself that he wants to fund SNAP but won't do it illegally,

I do NOT want Americans to go hungry just because the Radical Democrats refuse to do the right thing and REOPEN THE GOVERNMENT. Therefore, I have instructed our lawyers to ask the Court to clarify how we can legally fund SNAP as soon as possible.

Note that this was in response to using the contingency funds which were ultimately disbursed, not the order that was appealed to the Supreme Court, but I'm not aware of anything publicly changing between this message and the SCOTUS appeal that would have indicated a change in reasoning.

It can of course be argued that Trump is not letting a good disaster go to waste here by claiming to be constrained by the law when he could probably get away with doing all this without court coercion. That is, Trump wanted to let SNAP recipients feel some fear that he hoped he can convince them was the Democrats' fault before ultimately paying out the benefits, or in the alternative he's lying about wanting to pay out but is trying to save face after the court loss. I'm not trying to assert his actual feelings, just what has been said in public.

Improve this answer
16
  • 5
    "The President is Constitutionally charged to faithfully execute the laws" the president is also constitutionally charged to serve the people, not enrich himself and adhere to the constitution. So I don't know if you can unironically use this to start your argumentation in 2025. Btw.: The president is also charged with dispersing Congress-allocated funds but Trump has repeatedly refused to do so so that entire argument is completely moot. Trump says a lot of stuff and most of it turns out to have little correlation with facts or legality. Commented yesterday
  • 2
    For one thing Trump also said he'd release the Epstein files several times so he's not exactly a reliable source. "The core power of Congress is that of the purse" this is the wildest possible quote to anyone that followed this administration and has half a brain cell. Almost the entire DOGE-Episode earlier this year was based on literally not respecting Congress's appropriations. Commented yesterday
  • 1
    @QuestionablePresence You're missing the distinction between what a District Court thinks is legal and what the Executive Branch thinks is legal, which is why I pointed out that faithfully executing the laws could include appealing to SCOTUS. Would you also apply your logic to cases other administrations appealed and ultimately lost? Commented yesterday
  • 2
    besides the fact that you're entirely missing my point: yes I would make the same point against any other administrator known for actively violating the exact precedence that they're appealing to. I do not care who thinks what is legal. My point was that it is ridiculous for the Trump admin (or you on their behalf) to make this argument. That your "oh he's constitutionally charged" is a non-starter. People are charged to do a lot of stuff (or don't do others) that he has readily ignored. Commented yesterday
  • 2
    I am well aware that intra-governmental lawsuits are a thing and for a good reason (usually). My point is that it is unfitting to apply that cookie-cutter-logic to this admin. Commented yesterday
4

Trump has consistently pandered to what we might call "White Christian male" grievances: e.g., immigrants coming for American jobs, feminism and gay rights impacting on traditional patriarchal family structures and male rights, businesses suffering under economic and employment regulations, and other things that are part of the standard Right-wing media opinion-fodder. Trump's power-base rests almost entirely on the promotions of such media.

SNAP is a program that explicitly provides aid to low-income families (primarily women and children). It runs directly against Rightist ideology which holds that the poorer segments of society are suffering because of broken families and permissive 'liberal' handouts, and that every poor family should restructure itself along traditional Christian patriarchal lines, where the patriarch does the work necessary to keep his family fed, clothed and sheltered. In the worldview of this Rightist media bubble, SNAP is near-absolute evil: it encourages dependency, laziness, licentiousness, immorality, and you know… probably communism…

Trump's efforts to demonetize SNAP are direct offers to this worldview. I don't believe this is Trump's own worldview: ideologically Trump is more oligarchic than 'Male Nationalist', believing that government should be geared to benefit the wealthy and powerful 'winners' of the nation, not the poor and disempowered 'losers'. But demonetizing SNAP serves both purposes: shoring up ideological support with his base, increasing pressure on the lowest segment of the laboring classes to the advantage of business owners, and freeing up government funds that he can reallocate to whatever vanity projects he may have in mind.

Improve this answer
39
  • 4
    it encourages dependency => does it not, by definition? If it doesn’t, someone would be able to clearly articulate the conditions under which the program could be finally shutdown. But no one can, it’s yet another “temporary government program” that happens to be permanent. Commented 2 days ago
  • 5
    @JonathanReez You have to realize that to a certain way of thinking, if the government doesn't do something, then it doesn't happen. The so-called "White Christian male" approach is that G-d creates and runs all; the opposite view, as in this post, simply replaces G-d with the government. That a great majority of the 42 million might be helped by private charity, or - heaven forfend - by fending for themselves? Heresy. Commented 2 days ago
  • 8
    I know it's your schtick to always talk up "White Christian male grievances", but if Trump's appeal was limited to just that subset - "White Christian male" - then he'd have lost '24. He appealed to non-White conservatives, religious people, even long-established Hispanics concerned about illegal immigration. Most of all, he bit into the Dems blue collar worker base. The group he made least inroads into was, unsurprisingly women. As long as his opponents don't get that, and focus narrowly on white nationalism and totalitarianism as arguments, they won't do well. They need better sales ppl Commented 2 days ago
  • 6
    @Meir: Oh, please… SNAP et al aren't mandatory; they can't create dependency. Nobody luxuriates by signing up for SNAP, and no one would stay on such programs if they had access to better opportunities. You want to cast blame, cast blame on a society that forces people into positions where SNAP seems like the best option they have available. And I've seen your kind of charity in action: give a handout to those one judges worthy and tell everyone else to go eff themselves. Not exactly what you're favorite religious icon suggested, yah… Commented 2 days ago
  • 3
    @JonathanReez: I think the line is easy to see: i.e., people get to eat regularly. Sure, if the bureaucracy is bloated it should be cut back; sure, if people take advantage of the system that should be reigned in. But fundamentally this isn't a problem of money; this is a problem of human beings. You can argue about cuts all you like, but ultimately only one question matters: are people going to bed hungry because they can't afford food? If the answer is 'yes' we should fix it. Because that's wrong. Commented 2 days ago

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.