One of the devastating consequences of the coronavirus, after actual death, is the havoc it is wreaking on the economy and many people’s ability to earn a paycheck so they can afford basic things like food. Not only are many service industry workers, who don’t have cash reserves to fall back on, losing their jobs, but their children’s schools, often the primary source of their meals, have been shut indefinitely. In times like these, when extraordinary measures are being taken, actual Republicans are endorsing sending Americans $1,000 checks, and the federal government is in talks to bail out the cruise industry, you might think the Trump administration would pause its crusade to literally take food out of poor people’s mouths. But apparently you’d think wrong!

The Associated Press reports that on Wednesday, the Agriculture Department said it would appeal a judge’s ruling to stop a set of changes slated to go into effect on April 1 that could kick hundreds of thousands of people off of food stamps. Under the current program, federal rules dictate that able-bodied adults with no dependents must show they have worked at least 80 hours per month for more than three months in a 36-month period in order to qualify for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, aka food stamps. Individual states, however, currently have the right to waive the requirement in the case of high unemployment. Under the administration’s changes, the waiver option would be taken away from states in less than two weeks, removing approximately 700,000 people from the program by the Agriculture Department’s own estimate. While the situation is already dire for many people, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin warned Tuesday that the U.S. jobless rate could hit 20% as a result of the pandemic, a rate double that of the the worst unemployment level of the 2008 recession.

In her ruling, Judge Beryl Howell said it would be “arbitrary and capricious” to move forward with the plan in the midst of the fast-moving crisis, which most non-evil people would agree with. “Especially now, as a global pandemic poses widespread health risks, guaranteeing that government officials at both the federal and state levels have flexibility to address the nutritional needs of residents and ensure their well-being through programs like SNAP, is essential,” Howell wrote. Ellen Vollinger, legal director of the Food Research & Action Center, told the A.P. that her group opposes the changes at any time but particularly now, as they could force low-income workers to continue to do their jobs even if they should be staying home. “You don’t want to have workers going out when they’re sick and trying to document the right number of hours just to keep their benefits,” she said.

Apparently, though, that’s exactly what the Trump administration wants. In a curt response to the A.P., the Agriculture Department said, effectively, that it couldn’t care less about taking food away from people already struggling in the midst of an unprecedented crisis, writing that the “USDA disagrees with the court’s reasoning and will appeal its decision.” In December, Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue trotted out the typical Republican argument that people who can’t afford to feed their families would rather go hungry than be some kind of government mooch. “Government dependency has never been the American dream,” Perdue wrote in a column. “We need to encourage people by giving them a helping hand but not allowing it to become an indefinitely giving hand.”

Incidentally, as Vollinger pointed out, the economic relief package approved by the House freezes the government’s ability to cut SNAP benefits over the work requirement, meaning if the administration really does intend to fight for the changes, it’ll be clashing with Congress. Is this the hill these people intend to die on? Stay tuned!