Half of US states, led by Democratic attorneys general, have sued the Trump administration over its decision to halt funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), commonly known as food stamps, amid an ongoing government shutdown. The lawsuit, filed on Tuesday, aims to force the administration to use a contingency fund to prevent millions of low-income Americans from losing essential food benefits, arguing that the move is unlawful and threatens public health.
The coalition of 25 states and the District of Columbia filed the suit in federal court in Massachusetts, seeking an order for the Department of Agriculture (USDA) to provide SNAP benefits for November by tapping into a roughly $5 billion to $6 billion emergency contingency fund. They contend that the USDA’s refusal to use these funds violates congressional appropriations law and marks a dramatic shift from past practices, as similar funds were utilized during previous shutdowns to sustain benefits. The states involved include California, New York, Pennsylvania, and others spanning from Arizona to Wisconsin, representing a broad geographical and political cross-section.
The USDA announced last week that it would not disburse SNAP benefits starting November 1, citing that ‘the well has run dry’ due to the prolonged government shutdown, now in its 28th day and the second-longest in U.S. history. Agency officials defended the decision by stating that contingency funds are reserved for emergencies, such as natural disasters like Hurricane Melissa, and not for regular benefit payments. They placed blame on Democrats for the funding lapse, urging them to support a House-passed stopgap bill to reopen the government and restore aid to vulnerable populations.
State officials argue that cutting off SNAP benefits will exacerbate food insecurity and hunger, particularly among children, leading to negative health outcomes like poor concentration, fatigue, and behavioral problems. The lawsuit emphasizes that the loss of benefits could affect over 40 million people nationwide, with more than 25 million residing in the suing states alone. Recipients typically receive an average of $187 per month on reloadable debit cards for groceries, and the contingency fund, if used, would cover only about 60% of one month’s benefits, highlighting the precariousness of the situation.
In response, some states have pledged to use their own funds to bridge the gap, though many, including Massachusetts, lack the resources to fully compensate for the federal shortfall. California, for instance, is deploying its National Guard to assist with food distribution, while other states are directing beneficiaries to charity food pantries and alternative meal sources. However, the federal government has warned that it will not reimburse states for these expenditures, adding financial strain to already stretched budgets.
The political fallout has intensified, with Democrats and Republicans trading accusations over responsibility for the shutdown and the benefit suspension. California Governor Gavin Newsom condemned the administration’s actions as ‘cruel’ and indicative of a lack of humanity, while the USDA reiterated that Democrats must choose between catering to the ‘Far-Left wing’ or reopening the government. Bipartisan efforts, such as legislation introduced by Republican Senator Josh Hawley and supported by some Democrats, aim to ensure continued SNAP funding, but no resolution has been reached.
Looking ahead, the court’s decision on the lawsuit could determine whether millions of Americans receive food aid in November, with potential implications for public health and social stability. The ongoing shutdown continues to disrupt federal services, and the outcome may influence negotiations to end the impasse. As states brace for increased demand on social services, the situation underscores the broader tensions in U.S. politics over welfare programs and government funding.