Trump Panics and Scrambles to Save Himself from Devastating Court Losses

Summary

Legal AF - Trump Panics and Scrambles to Save Himself from Devastating Court Losses

Podcast: Legal AF by MeidasTouch
Date: November 7, 2025
Hosts:

• Ben Meiselas (MeidasTouch founder and civil rights lawyer)
• Michael Popok (National trial lawyer strategist)
• Karen Friedman Agnifilo (Former Chief Assistant District Attorney, Manhattan DA’s Office)

---

Overview

This episode focuses on critical legal developments surrounding former President Donald Trump’s refusal to comply with a federal court order to resume $8 billion in SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) benefit payments in November 2025. The hosts examine the Trump administration’s open defiance of Judge McConnell’s order, discuss the human and political consequences of withholding vital food assistance for 42 million Americans, and analyze the ongoing legal maneuvers in the appellate courts.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Breaking News: Trump Administration Defies Court Over SNAP Payments

• The Trump administration refused to make $8 billion in SNAP payments ordered by Judge McConnell, affecting 42 million Americans (18 million children) who rely on this aid.
• Instead of compliance, the administration sought a stay from the First Circuit Court of Appeals, which the district court promptly denied ([01:01]).

2. Human Impact Over Legal Process

• The hosts stress that the crisis is not simply bureaucratic, but about “human beings… Americans” who are being “starved to death” for political leverage ([01:55]).
• The administration is using the livelihoods of vulnerable Americans as a “cheap political point against the Democrats about getting the government reopened” ([02:11]).

3. Analysis of Judge McConnell’s Order

• Michael Popok reads directly from the judge’s 27-page order, highlighting:
  • SNAP supports one in eight Americans: 42 million people, including 14 million children, 8 million elderly, and 1.2 million veterans.
  • The Department of Agriculture's core mission is to ensure child nutrition, but their current actions “frustrate the very purpose of the program” ([03:37]).
  • “Such conduct is more than poor judgment. It is arbitrary and capricious. One cannot champion the public interest while simultaneously adopting policies that frustrate it.” — Judge McConnell ([04:00]).

4. Administrative Excuses Are Pretextual

• The administration argued logistical hurdles, such as the difficulty of making partial payments; the judge disagreed:
  • “Don’t make half payments. That’s never been done before… Make full payments.” ([02:56])
  • “Defendants overlook the fundamental point that compliance is achieved when Americans are fed, not when the federal government shifts the administrative burden of dispersing funds onto the states.” ([05:09])
  • The administration has contingency and alternate funds available to cover the shortfall ([06:05]).

5. Pretext for Withholding SNAP Funds: Political Motive

• Judge McConnell found the administration’s rationale disingenuous, citing public statements:
  • Trump’s social media posts: “SNAP benefits will be given only when the radical left Democrats open up government and not before.” ([07:21])
  • The court finds this political motivation “arbitrary and capricious,” undercutting supposed concerns about child nutrition funding ([07:00]).

6. Immediate Legal Fallout and Next Steps

• Judge McConnell ordered payments to be made in full by Friday, November 7, 2025 ([08:11]).
• The Trump administration immediately appealed to the First Circuit for a stay, signalling their intent to escalate to the Supreme Court if unsuccessful ([08:41]).
• The Supreme Court has a record of siding with the Trump administration in emergency applications, raising concerns for the outcome in this high-stakes case ([09:12]).

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the humanitarian crisis:
  • “We’re talking about 42 million of the most underprivileged people below the poverty line that are being starved to death by this administration to make a cheap political point…” — Michael Popok ([01:55])
• From Judge McConnell's order:
  • “Such conduct is more than poor judgment. It is arbitrary and capricious. One cannot champion the public interest while simultaneously adopting policies that frustrate it.” ([04:00])
• Administrative pretext:
  • “Don’t make half payments. That’s never been done before… Make full payments.” — Michael Popok summarizing the court’s direction ([02:56])
• On political motivations:
  • “Defendants stated desire to conserve funding for child nutrition programs seems entirely pretextual given the numerous statements made in recent weeks by Trump administration officials which … make clear that SNAP benefits are being withheld for political reasons.” ([07:00])
  • “SNAP benefits will be given only when the radical left Democrats open up government and not before.” — Donald Trump, as cited in court ([07:21])
• Legal escalation:
  • “If they lose there, the only thing they can do is then file… an emergency application to the United States Supreme Court. Now, we know they've done pretty well there… We'll have to see what they're going to do with 42 million starving Americans.” — Michael Popok ([09:12])

---

Important Segment Timestamps

• [01:01] Breaking news: Trump administration defies SNAP court order
• [01:55] Human impact emphasized; accusations of political hostage-taking
• [03:37] Judge McConnell’s order: the scope of SNAP and government’s responsibilities
• [04:00] “Such conduct is more than poor judgment. It is arbitrary and capricious…”
• [05:09] Compliance means feeding Americans, not passing the burden
• [06:05] Judge: Funding is available from contingency accounts
• [07:00] Court details political pretext; Trump’s statements used as evidence
• [07:21] Trump quoted: “SNAP benefits will be given only when…”
• [08:11] Court order: Payments must be made by November 7, 2025
• [08:41] Legal maneuvers: appeals, prospects for Supreme Court intervention
• [09:12] Supreme Court has favored Trump administration in similar cases

---

Conclusion

The episode delivers a compelling breakdown of the Trump administration’s escalating legal conflict with the federal judiciary over food assistance, sharply criticizing the use of vulnerable Americans as bargaining chips. The hosts provide legal context, read significant excerpts from Judge McConnell’s ruling, and forecast the next steps in this high-stakes legal saga.

---

For more legal analysis and copies of the court documents discussed, listeners are directed to the Legal AF Substack and YouTube channel.

Transcript

[A]

A Mochi moment from Tara who writes for years all my doctor said was eat less and move more. Which never worked. But you know what does? The simple eating tips from my nutritionist at Mochi. And after losing over 30 pounds, I can say you're not just another GLP1 source, you're a life source. Thanks Tara. I'm Mayra Amit, Founder of Mochi Health. To find your mochi moment, visit joinmochi.com Tara is a mochi member, compensated for.

[B]

Her story High interest debt is one of the toughest opponents you'll face unless you power up with a Sofi personal loan. A Sofi personal loan could repackage your bad debt into one low fixed rate monthly payment. It's even got super speed since you could get the funds as soon as the same day you sign. Visit sofi.compower to learn more. That's s o f I.com P-O-W-E-R loans originated by SoFi Bank NA member FDIC terms and conditions apply. NMLS 696891 we got some breaking news.

[C]

And a fast moving story out of Rhode Island. The Trump administration is defiant and is refusing to make $8 billion worth of payments for the snap anti hunger monthly payments in November that 42 million people rely on, including 18 million children. Rather than make the payments as ordered with an order from Judge McConnell that just came out late yesterday, the the Trump administration has instead run to the First Circuit Court of Appeals and filed a motion for stay. They asked to stay OR BLOCK Judge McConnell's order yesterday that was denied by Judge McConnell. Right now, as of this recording, the Trump administration is openly defying an order because until you get the actual stay from the First Circuit, which I doubt is coming, you must make the payments or you'll be dragged back into court with Judge McConnell to answer for it, including to be found in contempt. But let's forget all the legality. Let's forget all the procedural hurdles and agency action. We're talking about human beings. We're talking about Americans. We're talking about 42 million of the most underprivileged people below the poverty line that are being starved to death by this administration to make a cheap political point against the Democrats about getting the government reopened. A government that's only shut by a president who controls effectively the three branches of government. He controls the Supreme Court. He controls the executive branch and the legislative branch. And Americans are dying as a result. I'm going to read to you from Judge McConnell's order, written order we just got our hands on came out late on yesterday, 27 pages. Then I'll give you an update. And I just, I just did an interview with Sky Perryman, who runs Democracy Forward. That's the entity and its lawyers that are there in front of Judge McConnell for the American people trying to make sure that they don't, they aren't starved to death and made a political hostage by Donald Trump. In fact, Judge McConnell, and I'll read it to you in a minute, he said in his order, this is just a, this whole administrative red tape argument that the government is raising. Oh, it's very hard to make half payments because it'll take us months to come up with new tables and give it to the states. He said, well, don't make half payments. That's never been done before and never in the history of the program has it ever been cut off during a shutdown. Make full payments. And this argument that you have about administrative hassles is just pretext because you're cutting the funding, because Donald Trump wants to cut the funding, because he wants to make political hostages of other Americans. And here's what Judge McConnell said in his written order that we just got our hands on. It's up on legal AF substack right now. It is estimated that 42 million individuals, approximately one in eight Americans, rely on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP. This includes 14 million children, 8 million elderly people, and 1.2 million veterans. A core mission of the United States Department of Agriculture is to ensure that Americans children are properly nourished. Yet their decision to not feed hungry Americans through SNAP leaves this court to address the issues the agency has failed to resolve. While the President of the United States professes a commitment to helping those it serves, the government's actions tell a different story. Faced with a choice between advancing relief and entrenching delay, it chose the latter, an outcome that predictably may magnifies harm and undermines the very purpose of the program it administers. Such conduct is more than poor judgment. It is arbitrary and capricious. One cannot champion the public interest while simultaneously adopting policies that frustrate it. Here's what it's. Here's what he says on page 14 of his order. The defendants overlook the fundamental point that compliance is achieved when Americans are fed, not when the federal government shifts the administrative burden of dispersing funds onto the states, especially when there is still no clear disbursement date in sight. By doing so, the defendants have undermined both the intent and the effectiveness of this court's October 31st order and November 1st written order. The court is not inclined to excuse the non compliance, particularly where the obstacles the defendants now invoke are the foreseeable result of their own choices to do partial funding. Uh, this is what he said on page 23. One final point here, the judge says, contrary to what the defendants claim, 29 million children who participate in the child nutrition program are not at risk of immediately going hungry. In other words, take the money from other funds that you have to top up because there's only a partial amount left. Apparently 4.6 of the 8 million necessary for November payments is still available. But there are other payment, other payment accounts that the USDA can use to top this up to make a full SNAP payment. And they're saying, well, we don't want to take it for the child nutrition program. You can, because that's not going to make people go hungry. And many of these children are also covered by SNAP. You can take it from Section 32 receipts, which come from customs duties. So the judge Sundays, instead, SNAP recipients, 16 million of whom are children, will go hungry if they do not receive their SNAP benefits this month. And then he goes after Donald Trump and he says on pages 23 and 24 that the, that there's this. This agency in action is just a pretext. It is arbitrary and capricious. Here's what he says about that. Defendants stated desire to conserve funding for child nutrition programs seems entirely pretextual given the numerous statements made in recent weeks by Trump administration officials which who make clear that SNAP benefits are being withheld for political reasons. First, the defendant. The defendant's claim is undercut by the banner on the USDA's website, which provides that the well has one run dry because of Senate Democrats. The well is run dry. Cannot be so if. If as recent as 2019, the Trump administration's agricultural department acknowledged that contingency funds could be used to fund SNAP during the government shutdown. Second, and most notably, the defendant's claim is further undermined by President Trump's recent statements on social media. Initially, he said, if we're given the appropriate legal direction, it will be my honor to provide the funding. Despite the clear legal direction from this court and despite the defendant's indication in a filing of their intent to comply with the order, that the President nevertheless threatened to withhold SNAP payments on Election Day until the end of the government shutdown, SNAP benefits will be given only when the radical left Democrats open up government and not before. And the judge is not too pleased with that. So he has ordered that the payments get made by Friday, today, November 7, 2025, and that it be topped up to the full 8 million. Now, what did Trump do when he got that order? He asked in court to have the order stayed. The judge said no. They ran to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. They filed a notice of appeal, and now they have filed a motion to stay these actions by the First Circuit. I don't think the First Circuit is going to grant that motion, not with $8 billion and 42 million people and their hunger at risk. So if they lose there, the only thing they can do is then file. And that'll be over the weekend and we'll keep a close eye on it. An emergency application to the United States Supreme Court. Now, we know they've done pretty well there. They're winning about 80% of the time with emergency applications. They just won on a transgender passport issue, of all things. So we'll have to see. When it comes to funding, the United States Supreme Court has not been in favor of the American people and has allowed Donald Trump to cut off funding in other areas like the Department of Education and for women's groups. We'll have to see what they're going to do with 42 million starving Americans. And we'll continue to follow it. All right here. You're on the Midas Touch Network. Come over to Legal AF the substack hit the paid membership for Substack. I think it's $6.77 a month. You'll get copies of all these motions. You'll get live reporting and updating only on Legal. I have Substack and then come over to legal. I have YouTube. As we approach our 1 million subscriber base, be a part of that 1 million, that 1 million march over on legal AF YouTube. So until my next report, I'm Michael Popach.

[D]

Can't get your fill of Legal af.

[C]

Me neither.

[D]

That's why we formed the Legal AF substack. Every time we mention something in a hot take, whether it's a court filing or a oral argument, come over to the substack. You'll find the court filing and the oral argument there, including a daily roundup that I do called wait for it Morning af.

[C]

What else?

[D]

All the other contributors from Legal A there as well. We got some new reporting. We got interviews. We got ad free versions of the podcast and hot takes. We where Legal AF on substack. Come over now to free subscribe.

[E]

Introducing Family Freedom from T Mobile. We'll pay off four phones up to $3200 and give you four free phones, all on America's largest 5G network. Visit t mobile.com family freedom.

[C]

Up to.

[E]

$800 per line via virtual prepaid card.

[C]

Typically takes 15 days.

[E]

Free phone via 24 monthly bill credits with finance agreement. Example Apple iPhone 16128 gigs $829.99 Eligible example iPhone 11 Pro for well qualified credits end in balance due if you pay off early or cancel. Contact us.