Anne Lee compares the prices of various canned goods at ALDI in Binghamton, NY on December 5, 2019. Anne Lee, one of many farmers across America struggling to feed their own families, is $200,000 in debt and working several jobs to keep food on the table amidst bad markets, horrible weather and the ongoing trade war. Applying for food stamps, attending Food Bank distributions, and carefully calculating how to use her $175-per-month grocery allowance, she still manages to keep her growing children fed. (Photo: Carolyn Van Houten/The Washington Post via Getty Images)
Victory for 'Basic Human Decency': Judge Strikes Down Trump Effort to Slash Food Stamps for 700,000 Americans
"There's a lot of competition for Vilest Policy Ever, but slashing food stamps during a pandemic that's causing massive unemployment is way, way up there."
A federal judge in Washington, D.C. late Sunday struck down the Trump administration's proposed changes to the SNAP benefits program, potentially saving hundreds of thousands of people from losing badly-needed federal food assistance.
U.S. District Chief Judge Beryl Howell issued a scathing ruling, denouncing President Donald Trump and U.S. Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue, who she said have been "icily silent about how many [adults] would have been denied SNAP benefits had the changes sought ... been in effect while the pandemic rapidly spread across the country."
New York Attorney General Letitia James, who was among more than a dozen state attorneys general who joined the District of Columbia in suing the administration over the changes, called Howell's ruling "a major victory for common sense and basic human decency in our nation."
\u201cA judge has ruled in our favor and blocked the Trump administration\u2019s unlawful changes to SNAP.\n\u00a0\nThis decision is a major victory for common sense and basic human decency in our nation.\nhttps://t.co/DATfTf6Uva\u201d— NY AG James (@NY AG James) 1603111595
The USDA proposed the changes months before the coronavirus pandemic began. They were initially set to go into effect in April, but Howell issued an injunction in March, as the president declared a state of emergency, ordering the administration to delay the changes. Perdue later appealed Howell's order, potentially allowing the new rules to go into effect despite a pandemic that has left millions unemployed.
Under existing SNAP benefits rules, states are able to waive work requirements for SNAP benefits for areas with unemployment rates as low as 2.5%. Perdue and Trump moved to tighten the criteria for waiving the requirements by raising the minimum rate to 6%.
The change could have left nearly 700,000 people without the benefit, the Washington Post reported Sunday.
Tamar Haspel, a Post food policy columnist, tweeted that the proposal, and the administration's attempt to ensure it could go into effect during the public health and economic crisis, was in the running for Trump's "Vilest Policy Ever."
\u201cThere's a lot of competition for Vilest Policy Ever, but slashing food stamps during a pandemic that's causing massive unemployment is way, way up there. \n\n https://t.co/hWaFz3Ibby\u201d— Tamar Haspel (@Tamar Haspel) 1603112546
The pandemic, Howell said in her ruling, exposed how unworkable the administration's proposed changes were, with the number of Americans relying on SNAP benefits growing by 17%, or six million enrollees, and unemployment rates quadrupling.
Perdue and Trump displayed an "utter failure to address the issue" of how millions would be affected by new work requirements during the crisis, Howell said, rendering their changes "arbitrary and capricious."
With the ruling handed down two weeks before Nov. 3, the last day Americans can vote in the presidential election, journalist Matt Taibbi wrote that it may serve as a reminder of the president's priorities.
\u201cTrump: yes to Space Force, no to Food Stamps. Another equation that might be remembered in a few weeks.\u201d— Matt Taibbi (@Matt Taibbi) 1603110862
"Trump: yes to Space Force, no to Food Stamps," Taibbi tweeted.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. The final deadline for our crucial Summer Campaign fundraising drive is just days away, and we’re falling short of our must-hit goal. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
A federal judge in Washington, D.C. late Sunday struck down the Trump administration's proposed changes to the SNAP benefits program, potentially saving hundreds of thousands of people from losing badly-needed federal food assistance.
U.S. District Chief Judge Beryl Howell issued a scathing ruling, denouncing President Donald Trump and U.S. Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue, who she said have been "icily silent about how many [adults] would have been denied SNAP benefits had the changes sought ... been in effect while the pandemic rapidly spread across the country."
New York Attorney General Letitia James, who was among more than a dozen state attorneys general who joined the District of Columbia in suing the administration over the changes, called Howell's ruling "a major victory for common sense and basic human decency in our nation."
\u201cA judge has ruled in our favor and blocked the Trump administration\u2019s unlawful changes to SNAP.\n\u00a0\nThis decision is a major victory for common sense and basic human decency in our nation.\nhttps://t.co/DATfTf6Uva\u201d— NY AG James (@NY AG James) 1603111595
The USDA proposed the changes months before the coronavirus pandemic began. They were initially set to go into effect in April, but Howell issued an injunction in March, as the president declared a state of emergency, ordering the administration to delay the changes. Perdue later appealed Howell's order, potentially allowing the new rules to go into effect despite a pandemic that has left millions unemployed.
Under existing SNAP benefits rules, states are able to waive work requirements for SNAP benefits for areas with unemployment rates as low as 2.5%. Perdue and Trump moved to tighten the criteria for waiving the requirements by raising the minimum rate to 6%.
The change could have left nearly 700,000 people without the benefit, the Washington Post reported Sunday.
Tamar Haspel, a Post food policy columnist, tweeted that the proposal, and the administration's attempt to ensure it could go into effect during the public health and economic crisis, was in the running for Trump's "Vilest Policy Ever."
\u201cThere's a lot of competition for Vilest Policy Ever, but slashing food stamps during a pandemic that's causing massive unemployment is way, way up there. \n\n https://t.co/hWaFz3Ibby\u201d— Tamar Haspel (@Tamar Haspel) 1603112546
The pandemic, Howell said in her ruling, exposed how unworkable the administration's proposed changes were, with the number of Americans relying on SNAP benefits growing by 17%, or six million enrollees, and unemployment rates quadrupling.
Perdue and Trump displayed an "utter failure to address the issue" of how millions would be affected by new work requirements during the crisis, Howell said, rendering their changes "arbitrary and capricious."
With the ruling handed down two weeks before Nov. 3, the last day Americans can vote in the presidential election, journalist Matt Taibbi wrote that it may serve as a reminder of the president's priorities.
\u201cTrump: yes to Space Force, no to Food Stamps. Another equation that might be remembered in a few weeks.\u201d— Matt Taibbi (@Matt Taibbi) 1603110862
"Trump: yes to Space Force, no to Food Stamps," Taibbi tweeted.
A federal judge in Washington, D.C. late Sunday struck down the Trump administration's proposed changes to the SNAP benefits program, potentially saving hundreds of thousands of people from losing badly-needed federal food assistance.
U.S. District Chief Judge Beryl Howell issued a scathing ruling, denouncing President Donald Trump and U.S. Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue, who she said have been "icily silent about how many [adults] would have been denied SNAP benefits had the changes sought ... been in effect while the pandemic rapidly spread across the country."
New York Attorney General Letitia James, who was among more than a dozen state attorneys general who joined the District of Columbia in suing the administration over the changes, called Howell's ruling "a major victory for common sense and basic human decency in our nation."
\u201cA judge has ruled in our favor and blocked the Trump administration\u2019s unlawful changes to SNAP.\n\u00a0\nThis decision is a major victory for common sense and basic human decency in our nation.\nhttps://t.co/DATfTf6Uva\u201d— NY AG James (@NY AG James) 1603111595
The USDA proposed the changes months before the coronavirus pandemic began. They were initially set to go into effect in April, but Howell issued an injunction in March, as the president declared a state of emergency, ordering the administration to delay the changes. Perdue later appealed Howell's order, potentially allowing the new rules to go into effect despite a pandemic that has left millions unemployed.
Under existing SNAP benefits rules, states are able to waive work requirements for SNAP benefits for areas with unemployment rates as low as 2.5%. Perdue and Trump moved to tighten the criteria for waiving the requirements by raising the minimum rate to 6%.
The change could have left nearly 700,000 people without the benefit, the Washington Post reported Sunday.
Tamar Haspel, a Post food policy columnist, tweeted that the proposal, and the administration's attempt to ensure it could go into effect during the public health and economic crisis, was in the running for Trump's "Vilest Policy Ever."
\u201cThere's a lot of competition for Vilest Policy Ever, but slashing food stamps during a pandemic that's causing massive unemployment is way, way up there. \n\n https://t.co/hWaFz3Ibby\u201d— Tamar Haspel (@Tamar Haspel) 1603112546
The pandemic, Howell said in her ruling, exposed how unworkable the administration's proposed changes were, with the number of Americans relying on SNAP benefits growing by 17%, or six million enrollees, and unemployment rates quadrupling.
Perdue and Trump displayed an "utter failure to address the issue" of how millions would be affected by new work requirements during the crisis, Howell said, rendering their changes "arbitrary and capricious."
With the ruling handed down two weeks before Nov. 3, the last day Americans can vote in the presidential election, journalist Matt Taibbi wrote that it may serve as a reminder of the president's priorities.
\u201cTrump: yes to Space Force, no to Food Stamps. Another equation that might be remembered in a few weeks.\u201d— Matt Taibbi (@Matt Taibbi) 1603110862
"Trump: yes to Space Force, no to Food Stamps," Taibbi tweeted.