President Donald Trump faced intense criticism for hosting a lavish “Great Gatsby”-themed Halloween party at his Mar-a-Lago estate, an event that coincided with the expiration of SNAP benefits for millions of Americans amid a prolonged government shutdown. The timing of the opulent celebration highlighted stark contrasts between political elites and struggling families, drawing swift condemnation from opponents and underscoring the human cost of the budgetary impasse.
The party, held on October 31, 2025, was inspired by F. Scott Fitzgerald’s classic novel about wealth and class division, with guests donning 1920s flapper dresses and suits in a setting that echoed the Roaring Twenties extravagance. Attendees included Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Ivanka and Tiffany Trump, and their spouses, Jared Kushner and Michael Boulos, all gathered under the theme “A little party never killed nobody,” a reference to a song from the 2013 film adaptation. White House descriptions emphasized the festive atmosphere, but the event occurred just hours before critical food assistance programs were set to lapse, amplifying public scrutiny.
As the government shutdown stretched into its third week, becoming one of the longest in U.S. history, SNAP benefits—which support approximately 42 million low-income Americans—faced expiration due to the funding deadlock. States and food banks warned of a looming crisis, with vulnerable households potentially losing access to essential nutrition assistance. The shutdown’s persistence has left many families in uncertainty, exacerbating food insecurity and straining social safety nets across the country.
Democratic leaders swiftly denounced the party, with California Governor Gavin Newsom stating on social media that Trump “does not give a damn about you” and highlighting the insensitivity of celebrating while millions faced benefit cuts. Democratic National Committee chair Ken Martin accused the president of prioritizing his wealthy friends over ordinary citizens, calling the event a clear display of indifference to the struggles caused by the shutdown. These criticisms were echoed by other figures, including Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy, who remarked on the “inhumanity” of rubbing luxury in Americans’ faces during a crisis.
Legal battles over SNAP funding intensified amid the political fallout, with a federal judge in Rhode Island temporarily ordering the Trump administration to continue benefits following lawsuits by several states. However, a judge in Boston ruled the suspension attempt “unlawful” but declined to mandate immediate funding, creating confusion and variability in how states could respond. These conflicting judicial decisions added layers of complexity to the shutdown’s impact, leaving recipients and agencies in a state of limbo as they awaited clearer directives.
Trump addressed the controversy on social media, stating that his administration is seeking legal clarity from the courts and would “provide the funding” if given “appropriate legal direction.” He drew parallels to his earlier actions ensuring military and law enforcement pay during the shutdown, positioning himself as willing to act within legal constraints. White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly defended the president, accusing Democrats of hypocrisy and noting that Congress could end the shutdown at any time, shifting responsibility back to legislative leaders.
The episode reflects deepening political divisions and the tangible effects of governance disputes on everyday Americans. Advocates stress that the benefits cutoff could lead to increased hunger and economic strain, particularly for children and the elderly. As the standoff continues, attention turns to congressional negotiations and potential judicial resolutions, with the outcome likely to influence public perception and policy debates long after the shutdown ends.