U.S. court issues injunction, stating that stopping food benefits will cause "irreparable harm"

``` A U.S. federal court has ordered the Trump administration to continue paying food stamp benefits to tens of millions of Americans, blocking the White House's attempt to use the suspension of critical social welfare programs as a political bargaining chip. On Friday local time, U.S. District Judge Jack McConnell in Rhode Island blocked the planned cutoff of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits that was set to take effect the next day. SNAP provides food assistance to about 42 million people nationwide. In his ruling, Judge McConnell directed that the Trump administration must use emergency funds set aside by Congress to maintain at least part of the SNAP benefits. In addition, the judge required the government to review whether there are other federal funds that could be used to keep the program running in the absence of congressional appropriation. The plaintiffs’ legal team argued in court that cutting off SNAP benefits is “arbitrary and capricious” and has created “a crisis” for Americans who rely on food stamps. McConnell said: “There is no doubt that news of the halt to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program has caused panic for some, leaving them worried about being able to get enough food to feed their families.” Almost simultaneously, another federal judge in Boston, Indira Talwani, expressed similar views. While hearing a related lawsuit, she stated that the plaintiffs are likely to prove that the suspension of benefits is “illegal.” Facing judicial pressure, President Trump responded on social media, saying he had instructed his legal team to seek clarification from the courts on “how SNAP can be funded as quickly and legally as possible,” and blamed the government shutdown on the Democrats. White House Questions Legality of Payments, Blames Congress for Crisis The Trump administration insists its actions have a legal basis. In court, Department of Justice lawyer Tyler Becker argued that, because Congress had failed to pass a funding bill, the SNAP program “no longer exists in a legal sense” and therefore the government cannot pay the benefits. Becker also maintained that the use of up to $6 billion in emergency reserves is at the discretion of the executive branch. He emphasized: “A government shutdown is not an emergency. If there is an emergency, it is caused by Congress’s failure to provide funding to keep the government running.” President Trump expressed a similar position. On Truth Social, he wrote: “Our government lawyers believe we are not legally authorized to use certain funds we have to pay SNAP, and now two courts have given us contradictory opinions on what we can and cannot do.” He reiterated that if the court provides “appropriate legal guidance,” he would be “honored to provide funding.” Sharp Divergence Between Parties Highlights Political Struggle The court ruling immediately triggered fierce reactions from both parties. Senate Minority Leader and Democrat Chuck Schumer posted on X praising the ruling and said Trump’s “decision to cut SNAP was retaliatory and callous.” He believes this was Trump’s attempt to “create a hunger crisis” so that he would not have to make concessions on healthcare issues. By contrast, White House officials expressed strong dissatisfaction with the ruling. White House National Economic Council Director Hassett, in a Fox News interview, criticized: “We are about to use the Department of Agriculture’s emergency funds due to the ruling from a liberal judge, but we do not agree with the ruling legally.” Hassett warned: “This brings risks. If we run into a hurricane or a food emergency, we won’t have emergency funds available.” He blamed Democrats for failing to propose solutions and being responsible for the government shutdown. Risk Warning and Disclaimer The market has risks; investment must be cautious. This article does not constitute personal investment advice and does not take into account the specific investment objectives, financial situation, or needs of individual users. Users should consider whether any opinions, views, or conclusions in this article are applicable to their specific circumstances. All investments are at your own risk. ```