The White House has committed to partially funding SNAP benefits for November, countering President Trump’s threat to withhold the aid until the government shutdown ends. This move follows court orders and legal pressure to ensure food assistance continues for millions of Americans.
On Tuesday, President Donald Trump escalated tensions by threatening on Truth Social to withhold Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits until Democrats agree to reopen the government. He claimed that the benefits, which help nearly 42 million people, would only be distributed once the shutdown concludes. This statement directly contradicted his administration’s earlier court filings, which indicated plans to use a contingency fund to provide partial benefits. The White House quickly clarified that it would comply with judicial orders and proceed with the partial funding, aiming to mitigate the impact on vulnerable households.
The legal backdrop to this drama involves multiple federal lawsuits filed by states and advocacy groups last week, seeking to force the administration to maintain SNAP payments during the shutdown. Courts ruled that the government must tap into a roughly $5 billion contingency fund to keep benefits flowing, rejecting initial USDA claims that funding had expired. Trump himself had previously signaled willingness to fund the benefits if courts provided legal guidance, but his latest threat introduced confusion and potential defiance of court mandates.
Under the partial funding plan, not all recipients will receive half their usual benefits. Those eligible for the maximum allotment, such as $994 for a family of four, will get 50%, while smaller households might see reduced amounts based on USDA guidance. States are now recalculating payments using updated tables, a process that could take weeks in some cases, delaying assistance for many. The average SNAP benefit is around $350 per household monthly, and the contingency fund covers only about half the normal monthly cost, highlighting the program’s strained resources.
The uncertainty over SNAP benefits has profound implications for low-income families, seniors, veterans, and people with disabilities who rely on this aid for food purchases. Food banks across the country report increased demand as beneficiaries await clarity on payments. In California, for instance, officials expressed concerns about when reduced benefits would actually reach accounts, emphasizing the logistical challenges states face in implementing the new calculations swiftly.
Legal battles continue, with a federal judge in Rhode Island scheduling a hearing for Thursday to address requests for full benefit funding. Plaintiffs argue that the administration’s partial funding approach violates court orders and that alternative funds, such as tariff revenues, should be used to cover the full $8-9 billion needed. The USDA opposes this, citing risks to school meal programs, but the hearing could lead to further judicial intervention.
This standoff occurs amid a prolonged government shutdown, with no immediate resolution in sight. Political blame games persist, as Democrats accuse Trump of using essential services as bargaining chips, while the administration points to congressional inaction. The SNAP controversy underscores broader tensions over social safety nets and executive power, with potential long-term effects on public trust and policy stability.
Looking ahead, the outcome of Thursday’s hearing may determine whether beneficiaries receive full or partial benefits for November. Meanwhile, the administration faces pressure to expedite payments and ensure no one goes hungry. As the shutdown drags on, the focus remains on finding a bipartisan solution to reopen the government and restore normalcy to critical programs like SNAP.