Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What did Donald Trump say on November 4 2025?
Executive Summary
On November 4, 2025, Donald Trump made multiple public statements that touched on Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) payments, electoral outcomes, and New York City politics, generating immediate clarifications and pushback from his administration and critics. The core factual takeaways are: Trump said SNAP would not be paid until the government reopens, later walked back by the press secretary who said contingency funds are being used to comply with court orders; he blamed Republicans’ election setbacks on not being on the ballot and the government shutdown while urging sweeping voting changes; and he attacked Jewish supporters of a mayoral candidate while endorsing Andrew Cuomo — each claim sparked legal, political, and public controversy [1] [2] [3] [4] [5].
1. A SNAP threat that turned into a legal and administrative scramble
On November 4, Trump posted that SNAP benefits “will not” be distributed until Democrats reopen the government, framing the program as handed out “haphazardly” under his predecessor and conditioning payments on political action, a statement that created immediate confusion and legal friction. Two federal judges had already ordered the administration to use contingency funds to pay some benefits, and the Treasury available contingency amount was reported around $4.65 billion, roughly half of the monthly SNAP outlay for 42 million recipients; the administration then said it would make partial November payments under court order while arguing the president only meant to avoid tapping contingency funds long-term [1] [2] [3]. This sequence shows a public presidential pronouncement followed by swift legal constraints and executive clarifications.
2. What the White House claimed afterward — a walk-back with technical nuance
Following Trump’s social posts, Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt (Leavitt/Leavitt spelled differently across reports) clarified that the administration is complying with court rulings and using contingency funds to make required SNAP payments now, and that Trump’s comments were intended to signal reluctance to rely on contingency reserves in the future rather than an immediate stoppage of all payments. Plaintiffs in the SNAP litigation moved to enforce full funding for November, arguing partial payments miss court timelines, and a hearing was scheduled to resolve those enforcement questions; critics said the administration’s plan left many recipients in limbo [1] [2] [3]. The exchange underscores a tension between an executive political message and judicially ordered administrative action.
3. Broader political messaging: blaming elections and pushing voting changes
On the same day, Trump posted that poor election results were explained by him “not being on the ballot” and the ongoing government shutdown, asserting unnamed pollsters supported those explanations and calling for sweeping changes including ending mail-in ballots, imposing voter ID, and terminating the filibuster to let Senate Republicans pass funding and other priorities. That messaging came after reported losses attributed to the shutdown and framed institutional reforms as remedies; media outlets captured his social posts and the administration’s attempts to link electoral outcomes to the budget impasse [4]. These statements show an effort to translate electoral disappointment into calls for structural changes to voting and Senate rules.
4. Local attack in New York politics and threats over federal funding
Also on November 4, Trump attacked Jewish supporters of New York mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani, calling them “stupid” for backing Mamdani and labeling the candidate a “proven and self-professed JEW HATER,” while endorsing Andrew Cuomo and openly threatening to withhold federal funds from New York if Mamdani succeeded. Mamdani denied antisemitism, and critics pointed to the controversy of the president making such assertions and funding threats, noting prior accusations about Trump’s own remarks; the episode tied national presidential rhetoric directly into a municipal contest and federal funding leverage claims [5]. The interaction illustrates how presidential interventions can escalate local races into federal leverage disputes.
5. Public reaction, legal follow-up, and competing narratives
The immediate fallout combined legal enforcement by judges who ordered SNAP payments, administrative clarifications that current payments would proceed via contingency funds, and political criticism from Democrats and civic coalitions arguing that partial funding violated court intent and left people awaiting food assistance. The administration’s insistence it was only signaling a future policy preference contrasted with plaintiffs’ calls for full compliance, and public interest groups and cities warned of real-world harm if the partial plan held. Meanwhile, Trump’s broader rhetoric about elections and local politics amplified partisan divisions and prompted both legal motions and media scrutiny, producing a multifaceted dispute spanning law, policy, and campaign messaging [1] [2] [3] [4] [5].