program

Those who want to stay at the Rose Bowl describe the place as iconic, an ode to everything that’s great about college football. They say it oozes history and tradition. Just the sight of the glowing neon sign is enough to give them goosebumps.

Those who want to go call the place a dump. They say it’s old and decaying by the day, a shell of its former greatness. Why hold on so hard when a futuristic stadium in Inglewood could provide not only a home closer to campus but also an infusion of cash as part of a more favorable lease?

Going into what could be UCLA’s last home game ever at its century-old stadium Saturday night, some with deep ties to the school say they understand each of the dueling perspectives in the debate over a possible move to SoFi Stadium.

“The concern is, are you gonna lose part of your identity, which has been in peril lately already?” said Kris Farris, a former All-America offensive tackle with the Bruins who was among the more than half-dozen former greats and current recruits who spoke with The Times about the situation. “So it’s like you’re taking away another special part of UCLA, but of course everyone understands the upside financially and what the program needs to do in the arms race of college football right now.”

Officially, nothing has been decided. School officials have released two statements in recent weeks, both acknowledging the uncertainty of the situation. It’s believed that if UCLA decided to make a move to SoFi Stadium, the Bruins would want to do so before the 2026 season.

But the courts could have the final say. The Rose Bowl Operating Co. and the City of Pasadena have commenced a legal battle with hopes of forcing the team to stay. Having called the stadium home since moving in before the 1982 season under legendary coach Terry Donahue, UCLA committed to a lease that doesn’t expire until the summer of 2044.

“I just really feel if Terry was here, I think he’d say, ‘What’s the hurry?’ ” said Pat Donahue, one of the late coach’s brothers. “You have a lease, why don’t you underwrite what the issues are and if you feel you made a bad deal, go renegotiate. You know, I just don’t know what the hurry is and it seems to me that UCLA has a lot bigger football problems than the Rose Bowl, right? I mean, the building’s on fire and you wanna remodel the garden.”

Only one thing seems certain: UCLA will not play home games on campus, as so many have proposed over the years. A movement to build a football stadium on the spot now occupied by Drake Stadium died in 1965 amid opposition from students, political leaders and local homeowners. Not only did the University of California regents rebuff the stadium bid, they also decreed that no structure built on the Drake Stadium footprint could later be enlarged into a football stadium.

Thus the current dilemma. Does UCLA keep its word and fulfill a Rose Bowl lease in which it loses millions of dollars annually in opportunity costs because it does not take in suite or sponsorship revenue? Or do the Bruins head to SoFi Stadium for a new beginning flush with cash, if not tradition?

“In the long term, if you look at the UCLA program, SoFi makes a whole lot more sense whether you like it or not,” said former Bruins quarterback Gary Beban, who led the team to an upset of top-ranked Michigan State in the 1966 Rose Bowl and won the school’s only Heisman Trophy in 1967.

Beban played for UCLA teams that called the Coliseum home, long before the Bruins moved to the Rose Bowl. He said initially wasn’t a supporter of UCLA playing in Pasadena because of a 26.2-mile commute from campus, acknowledging the issue seemed to be largely offset by wild early success the team enjoyed while appearing in five Rose Bowl games between 1983 and 1999.

With the Bruins stuck in a decadelong funk, making that long commute has become more burdensome, leading to dwindling attendance at a stadium that’s roughly twice the distance from UCLA than SoFi Stadium.

“It’s a convenience issue for the people at the campus and over a longer period of time,” Beban said, “I think eventually SoFi just makes more sense than the Rose Bowl. … Right now, this is being looked at at a time when the program needs a lot of fresh air. Regardless of how big of a supporter you are, there are a list of things that need to be advanced and this is just one of them. Maybe it’s time to start all over in all directions and try to get going in the right direction.”

One of Beban’s teammates favors holding on more tightly to the past. Jim Colletto, co-captain of the 1966 Rose Bowl champions, said standing on that field makes one feel like he’s playing or coaching with the ghosts of legends.

Before his return to the Rose Bowl as UCLA’s offensive line coach in 2006, Colletto walked to the two-yard line, where former teammate Bob Stiles had made a goal-line stand 40 years earlier by stopping Michigan State fullback Bob Apisa on a potential game-tying two-point conversion.

“I closed my eyes,” Colletto said, “and it all came alive again.”

Which stadium do possible future UCLA players want to call home?

Kenneth Moore III, a wide receiver from St. Mary’s High in Stockton who has verbally committed to the Bruins, said he’d prefer to play at SoFi Stadium. As far as he’s concerned, the stadium that opened in 2020 is closer to campus and would create a better environment than the team has experienced at the Rose Bowl, where it’s averaging only 37,099 fans this season.

“I feel it’ll be more involvement from the fans after going to SoFi,” Moore said, “to have more packed-out stands.”

Cooper Javorsky has remained a constant presence at the Rose Bowl even after decommitting from UCLA in the wake of coach DeShaun Foster’s dismissal. The offensive lineman from San Juan Hills High who is still considering the Bruins has developed an affinity for the place based on his many weekends spent on the sideline watching games.

“I don’t think I’m really in a position to have an opinion,” Javorsky said, “but who wouldn’t think it’s cool to run out at the Rose Bowl on a Saturday?”

One widespread lament is the possible loss of unfettered tailgating on a sprawling golf course and surrounding parking lots. Farris said throwing a football on the grass and cooking food in an open space was the part of the gameday experience that his kids looked forward to most when they were younger.

“At SoFi, just having attended some professional games there, they just don’t have the tailgating experience,” Farris said. “The tailgating at the Rose Bowl is special, it’s unique. You know, it’s not a paved parking lot with a small little stall.”

Hearing that UCLA’s game against Washington on Saturday could be the team’s last one inside the stadium he once called home has motivated Farris to make the drive from Orange County. It could represent one final memory for someone who was part of the last Bruins team to play in a Rose Bowl game.

“There’s nothing like it,” Farris said of the place. “I’ve played in a lot of different stadiums and obviously the backdrop and the size and scale of the Rose Bowl, the history of the Rose Bowl, the energy coming from the fans and just the history in that building and to be able to call it your home as a program and that’s your home field and being able to dominate in that time like we were able to do as a team, I wouldn’t trade that for the world.”

Nearly everyone who weighed in the stadium debate agreed that winning would solve many of UCLA’s problems regardless of where it played, drawing more fans and revenue. But Dave Ball, a former Bruins All-America defensive end, said there was a caveat that should be attached to that sentiment.

“Yes, winning solves everything,” Ball said, “but it’s like to me, the resources are the thing, especially now, that are going to promote winning. It’s like, man, you need to have the players and to have the players you need big budgets and an environment that is like swooning over the kids and Ohio State has that, Alabama has that, a lot of the SEC schools have that, and so a great coach who starts to get the program going will instill more excitement and more money, but you do need a lot of the budget and the resources to get that top-tier coach and those top-tier athletes.

“This thing is a game of moving onto the next and what matters to everybody is, do you win football games, championships, bowl games or not?”

Koreatown resident Scott Lyness was well aware that the city of Los Angeles was looking to tackle its food waste problem.

While bicycling to work, he saw the growing number of green trash bins popping up on curbs. He read the notice sent to his home instructing residents to expect green bins to be delivered at some point.

Still, Lyness was not prepared for what came next: 13 green bins deposited earlier this month outside the apartment building he manages on New Hampshire Avenue.

That’s on top of the three bins that the city delivered the previous week at a smaller building he also manages next door, and the two green bins that those properties were already using.

Lyness, 69, who works as a project manager at USC, said the two buildings don’t have anywhere near the room to store so many full-size cans — and don’t generate enough organic waste to fill them. He’s tried to have his tenants contact city offices to say they don’t need them. He said he’s even thought about throwing them into the street.

“Our neighborhoods are being inundated with green waste bins,” he said.

City officials are working furiously to get Angelenos to separate more of their food waste — eggshells, coffee grounds, meat bones, unfinished vegetables, orange peels, greasy napkins — to comply with SB 1383, a state composting law passed in 2016. They’ve even implemented Professor Green, an online chatbot that can help residents decide what can and can’t go in the green bin.

SB 1383 requires that 75% of organic waste be diverted away from landfills by the end of the year and instead turned into compost. Food and other organic waste sent to landfills is a significant source of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Methane has a global warming potential about 80 times greater than carbon dioxide over a 20-year period.

To reach that goal, crews from L.A.’s Bureau of Sanitation have deposited huge numbers of 90-gallon green bins in front of some apartment buildings, including duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes and larger buildings that have been grandfathered into the city’s curbside trash collection program.

Scott Lyness, 69, stands near green waste bins outside the apartment building he manages in Koreatown.

(Kayla Bartkowski / Los Angeles Times)

Residents are already familiar with the green bins, which were long reserved for lawn clippings and other yard waste but now are the destination for food scraps as well.

Most large apartment buildings in L.A. have been spared from the recent round of green bin deliveries, since they participate in recycLA, the city trash franchise program that relies on private waste haulers.

Sanitation officials say that Angelenos who prefer smaller, more manageable containers should fill out a form to get a 30- or 60-gallon replacement. They point out that the bins are part of a much larger effort by the city to reach its zero-waste goals and “lead on sustainability.”

Most of the green bins’ contents are taken to a facility in Bakersfield, where the resulting compost can be used by farmers, said Heather Johnson, a sanitation spokesperson.

“While some may find [the bins] inconvenient at the moment, in the short term they will result in more diverted waste and cleaner air,” Johnson said in an email.

Despite those serious intentions, Angelenos have been poking fun at the “Great Green Bin Apocalypse of 2025,” as journalist and podcaster Alissa Walker framed the situation on Bluesky. Walker recently shared a photo showing what appeared to be 20 green bins in front of one property, right next to a discarded sofa.

“This one is probably my favorite,” she wrote. “I like how they lined them all up neatly in a row and then left the couch.”

Green organic waste bins outside an apartment building in Koreatown.

(Kayla Bartkowski/Los Angeles Times)

After Walker urged others to send in pictures, Silver Lake resident Tommy Newman posted a photo on Bluesky showing eight bins outside an eight-unit building, just south of Sunset Boulevard.

“Unless they are running a juice bar in there, how could they possibly create this much organic waste on a weekly basis?” wrote Newman, who works at a county housing agency.

Over on X, another observer summed up the absurdity in a different way. “LA gave every multi family unit a green bin due to a bureaucratic fever dream about composting,” the person wrote. “I have 5 personally.”

In recent months, L.A.’s sanitation agency has sent teams of “ambassadors” into neighborhoods to educate residents about the need to throw food in the green bins.

That means keeping food out of the 60-gallon black bins where residents have been accustomed to dumping most of their garbage, which ultimately winds up in landfills. Recyclable items, including glass and aluminum, will continue to go into blue bins.

The changes were also spelled out on fliers sent out by the city last summer, with a clear warning in all capital letters: “Unless we hear from you immediately, we will deliver a 90-gallon green container to your residence.”

Lyness saw those alerts and knew about the change. But he contends that most people would have missed the news or thrown the fliers away. Depositing an inordinate amount of bins around town is just not the way to encourage people to properly dispose of their organic waste, he said.

The city’s new food-waste program, which is projected to cost $66 million a year, is one reason the City Council approved a huge increase in trash fees earlier this year, in some cases doubling them. Each 90-gallon green bin costs the city $58.61, tax included, though residents are not being directly charged for the recent deliveries.

Sanitation officials say they have delivered more than 65,000 green bins across the city, with 4,000 to go. For residents waiting for them to be removed or replaced with a smaller bin, only 1,000 orders can be carried out in a regular workday, those officials said.

Around the corner on North Berendo Street, Lyness’ neighbor Lucy Alvidrez agreed that the green bins were troublesome while dragging in her black bin Thursday afternoon.

“They sure got carried away with it,” she said, pointing across the street to an apartment building with about two dozen green bins on its front curb.

Alvidrez, 69, who has lived in the neighborhood for two decades, never had an issue with trash collection until the city dropped off four green bins, one for each unit in her building. She was more fortunate than Lyness: sanitation workers took two of the bins back, upon request.

Alvidrez said she would prefer that the city “spend our money feeding the homeless” instead of purchasing bins that no one needs, she said.

A dozen green organic waste bins occupy a street in Koreatown..

(Kayla Bartkowski/Los Angeles Times)

Nearby, Lyness opened a neighbor’s green bin, which was filled to the brim with trash that wasn’t compostable and should have gone in a black bin. If no one knows what to put in the green bins, nothing is going to improve, he said.

“It’s trash,” he lamented. “It’s all trash.”

SEOUL, Nov. 14 (UPI) — The United States and South Korea on Friday released a joint fact sheet on a sweeping trade and security agreement that details a $350 billion investment pledge by Seoul and confirms Washington’s approval for its Asian ally to develop nuclear-powered submarines.

The document comes two weeks after U.S. President Donald Trump and South Korean President Lee Jae Myung finalized their trade negotiations on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum in Gyeongju on Oct. 29.

“With this, the Korea-U.S. trade and security negotiations, which have been one of the greatest variables affecting our economy and security, have finally been concluded,” Lee said in a televised press briefing and Facebook post on Friday.

Lee expressed “gratitude and respect” for Trump’s decision and said both sides “achieved the best possible outcome, based on common sense and reason.”

Under the terms of the deal, Trump’s so-called “reciprocal” tariffs on South Korean goods, including automobiles, will drop from 25% to 15%, returning to the level initially established in July during Lee’s visit to the White House.

In exchange for the lower tariffs, South Korea has pledged to invest $350 billion in the United States, including $150 billion in the U.S. shipbuilding sector and $200 billion for strategic sectors under a memorandum of understanding to be signed by the two countries.

To minimize the impact on South Korea’s foreign exchange market, Seoul’s annual investment cap was set at $20 billion, the fact sheet said.

“The two governments confirmed that Korea’s investments will proceed only within a level our economy can fully sustain and only in commercially viable projects,” Lee said. “The mistrust and concerns of some who were worried this was a ‘de facto grant’ under the guise of investment in projects with difficult returns have been completely dispelled.”

The fact sheet also formalized Washington’s approval for Seoul’s plan to build nuclear-powered submarines, a capability South Korean leaders have pursued for years. Seoul has framed nuclear-powered vessels as essential for tracking North Korean ballistic missile submarines and for expanding its reach across the Indo-Pacific. Officials also see the program as a catalyst for the country’s nuclear energy and naval shipbuilding industries.

The agreement said Washington will work with Seoul to define requirements for the project, “including avenues to source fuel.” Securing enriched uranium for submarine reactors had been a sticking point in the release of the fact sheet, as Seoul has sought revisions to its bilateral nuclear cooperation pact to allow greater flexibility in enrichment and nuclear waste recycling.

Lee called the submarines “a decades-old dream of South Korea and a vital strategic asset for peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula.”

The agreement comes as Washington and Seoul undertake a broader effort to modernize their security alliance and reshape how the two countries share military responsibilities. The fact sheet noted that South Korea intends to raise defense spending to 3.5% of GDP “as soon as possible,” and reiterated a commitment to the eventual transition of wartime operational control to Seoul.

Seoul also pledged to spend $25 billion on U.S. military equipment purchases by 2030 and outlined plans to provide comprehensive support for U.S. Forces Korea amounting to $33 billion.

“The South Korea-U.S. alliance has evolved and deepened into a truly future-oriented strategic comprehensive alliance encompassing security, the economy, and cutting-edge technology,” Lee said.

As part of that broader strategic framework, the two governments reaffirmed their shared goal of a denuclearized Korean Peninsula and pledged to work together to implement the joint statement of the 2018 Singapore summit between Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.

The fact sheet called on North Korea to “return to meaningful dialogue and abide by its international obligations, including by abandoning its weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile programs.”

North Korea has rejected calls for denuclearization since declaring itself a nuclear-armed state in 2022. In September, Kim signaled a willingness to resume diplomacy with Washington but warned that any discussion of giving up his regime’s nuclear arsenal would be off the table.

LONDON — The BBC reported Monday that President Trump sent a letter threatening legal action over the way a speech he made was edited in a documentary aired by the British broadcaster.

The BBC’s top executive and its head of news both quit Sunday over accusations of bias and misleading editing of a speech Trump delivered on Jan. 6, 2021, before a crowd of his supporters stormed the Capitol in Washington.

Asked about a letter from Trump threatening legal action over the incident, the BBC said in a statement on Monday that “we will review the letter and respond directly in due course.” It did not provide further details.

Earlier, Trump welcomed the resignations of BBC Director-General Tim Davie and news chief Deborah Turness, saying the way his speech was edited was an attempt to “step on the scales of a Presidential Election.”

The hourlong documentary — titled “Trump: A Second Chance?” — was broadcast as part of the BBC’s “Panorama” series days before the 2024 U.S. presidential election. It spliced together three quotes from two sections of the 2021 speech, delivered almost an hour apart, into what appeared to be one quote in which Trump urged supporters to march with him and “fight like hell.” Among the parts cut out was a section where Trump said he wanted supporters to demonstrate peacefully.

In a resignation letter to staff, Davie said: “There have been some mistakes made and as director-general I have to take ultimate responsibility.”

Turness said the controversy was damaging the BBC, and she quit “because the buck stops with me.”

Turness defended the organization’s journalists against allegations of bias.

“Our journalists are hardworking people who strive for impartiality, and I will stand by their journalism,” she said Monday. “There is no institutional bias. Mistakes are made, but there’s no institutional bias.”

BBC chairman Samir Shah apologized Monday for the broadcaster’s “error of judgment,” saying the broadcaster “accept[s] that the way the speech was edited did give the impression of a direct call for violent action.”

Trump posted a link to a Daily Telegraph story about the speech-editing on his Truth Social network, thanking the newspaper “for exposing these Corrupt ‘Journalists.’ These are very dishonest people who tried to step on the scales of a Presidential Election.” He called that “a terrible thing for Democracy!”

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt reacted on X, posting a screen grab of an article headlined “Trump goes to war with ‘fake news’ BBC” beside another about Davie’s resignation, with the words “shot” and “chaser.”

Trump speech edited

Pressure on the broadcaster’s top executives has been growing since the right-leaning Daily Telegraph published parts of a dossier compiled by Michael Prescott, who had been hired to advise the BBC on standards and guidelines.

As well as the Trump edit, it criticized the BBC’s coverage of transgender issues and raised concerns of anti-Israel bias in the BBC’s Arabic service.

The “Panorama” episode showed an edited clip from the January 2021 speech in which Trump claimed the 2020 presidential election had been rigged. Trump is shown saying: “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol and I’ll be there with you. And we fight. We fight like hell.”

According to video and a transcript from Trump’s comments that day, he said:  “I’ll be there with you, we’re going to walk down, we’re going to walk down. Anyone you want, but I think right here, we’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them.

“Because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated.

“I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”

Trump used the “fight like hell” phrase toward the end of the speech, but without referencing the Capitol.

“We fight like hell. And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore,” Trump said.

In a letter to Parliament’s Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Shah said the purpose of editing Trump’s words had been “to convey the message of the speech” so that viewers could understand how it had been received by Trump’s supporters and what was happening on the ground.

He said the program had not attracted “significant audience feedback” when it first aired but had drawn more than 500 complaints since Prescott’s dossier was made public.

Shah acknowledged in a BBC interview that “it would have been better to have acted earlier. But we didn’t.”

A national institution

The 103-year-old BBC faces greater scrutiny than other broadcasters — and criticism from its commercial rivals — because of its status as a national institution funded through an annual license fee of 174.50 pounds ($230) paid by all households who watch live TV or any BBC content.

The broadcaster is bound by the terms of its charter to be impartial, and critics are quick to point out when they think it has failed. It’s frequently a political football, with conservatives seeing a leftist slant in its news output and some liberals accusing it of having a conservative bias.

It has also been criticized from all angles over its coverage of the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza. In February, the BBC removed a documentary about Gaza from its streaming service after it emerged that the child narrator was the son of an official in the Hamas-led government.

Governments of both left and right have long been accused of meddling with the broadcaster, which is overseen by a board that includes both BBC nominees and government appointees.

Some defenders of the BBC allege that members of the board appointed under previous Conservative governments have been undermining the corporation from within.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s spokesman, Tom Wells, said the center-left Labor Party government supports “a strong, independent BBC” and doesn’t think the broadcaster is biased.

“But it is important that the BBC acts to maintain trust and corrects mistakes quickly when they occur,” he said.

Lawless writes for the Associated Press.

The Trump administration spent Friday fighting to avoid restoring $4 billion in food assistance in jeopardy due to the government shutdown, suggesting it might need to “raid school-lunch money” in order to comply with court orders.

The claim was part of a break-neck appeal in the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday, where the government hoped to duck a court order that would force it to pay out for food stamps — formally called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP — through November.

“There is no lawful basis for an order that directs USDA to somehow find $4 billion in the metaphorical couch cushions,” Assistant Atty. Gen. Brett A. Shumate wrote in the appeal.

The administration’s only option would be to “to starve Peter to feed Paul” by cutting school lunch programs, Shumate wrote.

On Friday afternoon, the appellate court declined to immediately block the lower court’s order, and said it would quickly rule on the merits of the funding decree.

SNAP benefits are a key fight in the ongoing government shutdown. California is one of several states suing the administration to restore the safety net program while negotiations continue to end the stalemate.

Millions of Americans have struggled to afford groceries since benefits lapsed Nov. 1, inspiring many Republican lawmakers to join Democrats in demanding an emergency stopgap.

The Trump administration was previously ordered to release contingency funding for the program that it said would cover benefits for about half of November.

But the process has been “confusing and chaotic” and “rife with errors,” according to a brief filed by 25 states and the District of Columbia.

Some states, including California, have started disbursing SNAP benefits for the month. Others say the partial funding is a functional lockout.

“Many states’ existing systems require complete reprogramming to accomplish this task, and given the sudden — and suddenly changing — nature of USDA’s guidance, that task is impossible to complete quickly,” the brief said.

“Recalculations required by [the government’s] plan will delay November benefits for [state] residents for weeks or months.”

On Thursday, U.S. District Judge John McConnell Jr. of Rhode Island ordered the full food stamp payout by the end of the week. He accused the administration of withholding the benefit for political gain.

“Faced with a choice between advancing relief and entrenching delay, [the administration] chose the latter — an outcome that predictably magnifies harm and undermines the very purpose of the program it administers,” he wrote.

“This Court is not naïve to the administration’s true motivations,” McConnell wrote. “Far from being concerned with Child Nutrition funding, these statements make clear that the administration is withholding full SNAP benefits for political purposes.”

The appeal could extend that deadline by as little as a few hours, or nullify it entirely.

But the latter may be unlikely, especially following the appellate court’s decision late Friday. The 1st Circuit is currently the country’s most liberal, with five active judges, all of whom were named to the bench by Democratic presidents.

While the court deliberates, both sides are left sparring over how many children will go hungry if the other prevails.

More than 16 million children rely on SNAP benefits. Close to 30 million are fed through the National School Lunch Program, which the government now says it must gut to meet the court’s order.

But the same pool of cash has already been tapped to extend Women, Infants and Children, which is a federal program that pays for baby formula and other basics for some poor families.

“This clearly undermines the Defendants’ point, as WIC is an entirely separate program from the Child Nutrition Programs,” McConnell wrote.

In its Friday order, the 1st Circuit panel said it would issue a full ruling “as quickly as possible.”

Nov. 1 (UPI) — The nation’s 42 million recipients of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits will have to wait for them to be restored after losing them on Saturday, which might take weeks.

The ongoing federal government shutdown has shut off funding for the SNAP program that enables recipients to buy food, but two federal judges on Friday ordered the Trump administration to continue it.

President Donald Trump on Friday night announced he is seeking ways to access funds to keep the program going as the federal government shutdown continues at least through Monday.

“I do not want Americans to go hungry just because the radical Democrats refuse to do the right thing and reopen the government,” Trump said Friday in a Truth Social post.

Trump said the two federal judges issued conflicting rulingsand he does not think the federal government legally can access available funds to cover SNAP costs.

“I have instructed our lawyers to ask the court to clarify how we can legally fund SNAP as soon as possible,” he said.

“Even if we get immediate guidance, it will unfortunately be delayed while states get the money out.”

U.S. District Court of Rhode Island Judge John McConnell Jr.was one of the two judges who ordered the SNAP benefits to continue despite the shutdown.

On Saturday, he responded to the president’s post by ordering the Trump administration to access $6 billion in contingency funds for SNAP benefits.

“There is no question that the congressionally approved contingency funds must be used now because of the shutdown,” McConnell wrote Saturday in a seven-page order.

The contingency fund is too little to cover the full $9 billion monthly cost of providing SNAP benefits, but SNAP is an entitlement that the federal government must provide to all eligible households, he said.

“To ensure the quick, orderly and efficient implementation of the court’s order … and to alleviate the irreparable harm that the court found exists without timely payment of SNAP benefits, the government should … find the additional funds necessary to fully fund the November SNAP payments,” McConnell ruled.

He ordered the Trump administration to make at least a partial payment of SNAP benefits by Wednesday and to report how it intends to do so by noon EST on Monday.

The Trump administration said it will take several days and possibly longer to get funds to the respective states and cover the benefits for those who don’t receive them this month.

If the government shutdown continues into December, the problem starts over again with no contingency funds available.